Ethics & Policy
The Secret AI Experiment That Sent Reddit Into a Frenzy
When Reddit rebranded itself as “the heart of the internet” a couple of years ago, the slogan was meant to evoke the site’s organic character. In an age of social media dominated by algorithms, Reddit took pride in being curated by a community that expressed its feelings in the form of upvotes and downvotes—in other words, being shaped by actual people.
So earlier this week, when members of a popular subreddit learned that their community had been infiltrated by undercover researchers posting AI-written comments and passing them off as human thoughts, the Redditors were predictably incensed. They called the experiment “violating,” “shameful,” “infuriating,” and “very disturbing.” As the backlash intensified, the researchers went silent, refusing to reveal their identity or answer questions about their methodology. The university that employs them has announced that it’s investigating. Meanwhile, Reddit’s chief legal officer, Ben Lee, wrote that the company intends to “ensure that the researchers are held accountable for their misdeeds.”
Joining the chorus of disapproval were fellow internet researchers, who condemned what they saw as a plainly unethical experiment. Amy Bruckman, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has studied online communities for more than two decades, told me the Reddit fiasco is “the worst internet-research ethics violation I have ever seen, no contest.” What’s more, she and others worry that the uproar could undermine the work of scholars who are using more conventional methods to study a crucial problem: how AI influences the way humans think and relate to one another.
The researchers, based at the University of Zurich, wanted to find out whether AI-generated responses could change people’s views. So they headed to the aptly named subreddit r/changemyview, in which users debate important societal issues, along with plenty of trivial topics, and award points to posts that talk them out of their original position. Over the course of four months, the researchers posted more than 1,000 AI-generated comments on pitbulls (is aggression the fault of the breed or the owner?), the housing crisis (is living with your parents the solution?), DEI programs (were they destined to fail?). The AI commenters argued that browsing Reddit is a waste of time and that the “controlled demolition” 9/11 conspiracy theory has some merit. And as they offered their computer-generated opinions, they also shared their backstories. One claimed to be a trauma counselor; another described himself as a victim of statutory rape.
In one sense, the AI comments appear to have been rather effective. When researchers asked the AI to personalize its arguments to a Redditor’s biographical details, including gender, age, and political leanings (inferred, courtesy of another AI model, through the Redditor’s post history), a surprising number of minds indeed appear to have been changed. Those personalized AI arguments received, on average, far higher scores in the subreddit’s point system than nearly all human commenters, according to preliminary findings that the researchers shared with Reddit moderators and later made private. (This analysis, of course, assumes that no one else in the subreddit was using AI to hone their arguments.)
The researchers had a tougher time convincing Redditors that their covert study was justified. After they had finished the experiment, they contacted the subreddit’s moderators, revealed their identity, and requested to “debrief” the subreddit—that is, to announce to members that for months, they had been unwitting subjects in a scientific experiment. “They were rather surprised that we had such a negative reaction to the experiment,” says one moderator, who asked to be identified by his username, LucidLeviathan, to protect his privacy. According to LucidLeviathan, the moderators requested that the researchers not publish such tainted work, and that they issue an apology. The researchers refused. After more than a month of back-and-forth, the moderators revealed what they had learned about the experiment (minus the researchers’ names) to the rest of the subreddit, making clear their disapproval.
When the moderators sent a complaint to the University of Zurich, the university noted in its response that the “project yields important insights, and the risks (e.g. trauma etc.) are minimal,” according to an excerpt posted by moderators. In a statement to me, a university spokesperson said that the ethics board had received notice of the study last month, advised the researchers to comply with the subreddit’s rules, and “intends to adopt a stricter review process in the future.” Meanwhile, the researchers defended their approach in a Reddit comment, arguing that “none of the comments advocate for harmful positions” and that each AI-generated comment was reviewed by a human team member before being posted. (I sent an email to an anonymized address for the researchers, posted by Reddit moderators, and received a reply that directed my inquiries to the university.)
Perhaps the most telling aspect of the Zurich researchers’ defense was that, as they saw it, deception was integral to the study. The University of Zurich’s ethics board—which can offer researchers advice but, according to the university, lacks the power to reject studies that fall short of its standards—told the researchers before they began posting that “the participants should be informed as much as possible,” according to the university statement I received. But the researchers seem to believe that doing so would have ruined the experiment. “To ethically test LLMs’ persuasive power in realistic scenarios, an unaware setting was necessary,” because it more realistically mimics how people would respond to unidentified bad actors in real-world settings, the researchers wrote in one of their Reddit comments.
How humans are likely to respond in such a scenario is an urgent issue and a worthy subject of academic research. In their preliminary results, the researchers concluded that AI arguments can be “highly persuasive in real-world contexts, surpassing all previously known benchmarks of human persuasiveness.” (Because the researchers finally agreed this week not to publish a paper about the experiment, the accuracy of that verdict will probably never be fully assessed, which is its own sort of shame.) The prospect of having your mind changed by something that doesn’t have one is deeply unsettling. That persuasive superpower could also be employed for nefarious ends.
Still, scientists don’t have to flout the norms of experimenting on human subjects in order to evaluate the threat. “The general finding that AI can be on the upper end of human persuasiveness—more persuasive than most humans—jibes with what laboratory experiments have found,” Christian Tarsney, a senior research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin, told me. In one recent laboratory experiment, participants who believed in conspiracy theories voluntarily chatted with an AI; after three exchanges, about a quarter of them lost faith in their previous beliefs. Another found that ChatGPT produced more persuasive disinformation than humans, and that participants who were asked to distinguish between real posts and those written by AI could not effectively do so.
Giovanni Spitale, the lead author of that study, also happens to be a scholar at the University of Zurich, and has been in touch with one of the researchers behind the Reddit AI experiment, who asked him not to reveal their identity. “We are receiving dozens of death threats,” the researcher wrote to him, in a message Spitale shared with me. “Please keep the secret for the safety of my family.”
One likely reason the backlash has been so strong is because, on a platform as close-knit as Reddit, betrayal cuts deep. “One of the pillars of that community is mutual trust,” Spitale told me; it’s part of the reason he opposes experimenting on Redditors without their knowledge. Several scholars I spoke with about this latest ethical quandary compared it—unfavorably—to Facebook’s infamous emotional-contagion study. For one week in 2012, Facebook altered users’ News Feed to see if viewing more or less positive content changed their posting habits. (It did, a little bit.) Casey Fiesler, an associate professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder who studies ethics and online communities, told me that the emotional-contagion study pales in comparison with what the Zurich researchers did. “People were upset about that but not in the way that this Reddit community is upset,” she told me. “This felt a lot more personal.”
The reaction probably also has to do with the unnerving notion that ChatGPT knows what buttons to push in our minds. It’s one thing to be fooled by some human Facebook researchers with dubious ethical standards, and another entirely to be duped by a cosplaying chatbot. I read through dozens of the AI comments, and although they weren’t all brilliant, most of them seemed reasonable and genuine enough. They made a lot of good points, and I found myself nodding along more than once. As the Zurich researchers warn, without more robust detection tools, AI bots might “seamlessly blend into online communities”—that is, assuming they haven’t already.
Ethics & Policy
AI and ethics – what is originality? Maybe we’re just not that special when it comes to creativity?
I don’t trust AI, but I use it all the time.
Let’s face it, that’s a sentiment that many of us can buy into if we’re honest about it. It comes from Paul Mallaghan, Head of Creative Strategy at We Are Tilt, a creative transformation content and campaign agency whose clients include the likes of Diageo, KPMG and Barclays.
Taking part in a panel debate on AI ethics at the recent Evolve conference in Brighton, UK, he made another highly pertinent point when he said of people in general:
We know that we are quite susceptible to confident bullshitters. Basically, that is what Chat GPT [is] right now. There’s something reminds me of the illusory truth effect, where if you hear something a few times, or you say it here it said confidently, then you are much more likely to believe it, regardless of the source. I might refer to a certain President who uses that technique fairly regularly, but I think we’re so susceptible to that that we are quite vulnerable.
And, yes, it’s you he’s talking about:
I mean all of us, no matter how intelligent we think we are or how smart over the machines we think we are. When I think about trust, – and I’m coming at this very much from the perspective of someone who runs a creative agency – we’re not involved in building a Large Language Model (LLM); we’re involved in using it, understanding it, and thinking about what the implications if we get this wrong. What does it mean to be creative in the world of LLMs?
Genuine
Being genuine, is vital, he argues, and being human – where does Human Intelligence come into the picture, particularly in relation to creativity. His argument:
There’s a certain parasitic quality to what’s being created. We make films, we’re designers, we’re creators, we’re all those sort of things in the company that I run. We have had to just face the fact that we’re using tools that have hoovered up the work of others and then regenerate it and spit it out. There is an ethical dilemma that we face every day when we use those tools.
His firm has come to the conclusion that it has to be responsible for imposing its own guidelines here to some degree, because there’s not a lot happening elsewhere:
To some extent, we are always ahead of regulation, because the nature of being creative is that you’re always going to be experimenting and trying things, and you want to see what the next big thing is. It’s actually very exciting. So that’s all cool, but we’ve realized that if we want to try and do this ethically, we have to establish some of our own ground rules, even if they’re really basic. Like, let’s try and not prompt with the name of an illustrator that we know, because that’s stealing their intellectual property, or the labor of their creative brains.
I’m not a regulatory expert by any means, but I can say that a lot of the clients we work with, to be fair to them, are also trying to get ahead of where I think we are probably at government level, and they’re creating their own frameworks, their own trust frameworks, to try and address some of these things. Everyone is starting to ask questions, and you don’t want to be the person that’s accidentally created a system where everything is then suable because of what you’ve made or what you’ve generated.
Originality
That’s not necessarily an easy ask, of course. What, for example, do we mean by originality? Mallaghan suggests:
Anyone who’s ever tried to create anything knows you’re trying to break patterns. You’re trying to find or re-mix or mash up something that hasn’t happened before. To some extent, that is a good thing that really we’re talking about pattern matching tools. So generally speaking, it’s used in every part of the creative process now. Most agencies, certainly the big ones, certainly anyone that’s working on a lot of marketing stuff, they’re using it to try and drive efficiencies and get incredible margins. They’re going to be on the race to the bottom.
But originality is hard to quantify. I think that actually it doesn’t happen as much as people think anyway, that originality. When you look at ChatGPT or any of these tools, there’s a lot of interesting new tools that are out there that purport to help you in the quest to come up with ideas, and they can be useful. Quite often, we’ll use them to sift out the crappy ideas, because if ChatGPT or an AI tool can come up with it, it’s probably something that’s happened before, something you probably don’t want to use.
More Human Intelligence is needed, it seems:
What I think any creative needs to understand now is you’re going to have to be extremely interesting, and you’re going to have to push even more humanity into what you do, or you’re going to be easily replaced by these tools that probably shouldn’t be doing all the fun stuff that we want to do. [In terms of ethical questions] there’s a bunch, including the copyright thing, but there’s partly just [questions] around purpose and fun. Like, why do we even do this stuff? Why do we do it? There’s a whole industry that exists for people with wonderful brains, and there’s lots of different types of industries [where you] see different types of brains. But why are we trying to do away with something that allows people to get up in the morning and have a reason to live? That is a big question.
My second ethical thing is, what do we do with the next generation who don’t learn craft and quality, and they don’t go through the same hurdles? They may find ways to use {AI] in ways that we can’t imagine, because that’s what young people do, and I have faith in that. But I also think, how are you going to learn the language that helps you interface with, say, a video model, and know what a camera does, and how to ask for the right things, how to tell a story, and what’s right? All that is an ethical issue, like we might be taking that away from an entire generation.
And there’s one last ‘tough love’ question to be posed:
What if we’re not special? Basically, what if all the patterns that are part of us aren’t that special? The only reason I bring that up is that I think that in every career, you associate your identity with what you do. Maybe we shouldn’t, maybe that’s a bad thing, but I know that creatives really associate with what they do. Their identity is tied up in what it is that they actually do, whether they’re an illustrator or whatever. It is a proper existential crisis to look at it and go, ‘Oh, the thing that I thought was special can be regurgitated pretty easily’…It’s a terrifying thing to stare into the Gorgon and look back at it and think,’Where are we going with this?’. By the way, I do think we’re special, but maybe we’re not as special as we think we are. A lot of these patterns can be matched.
My take
This was a candid worldview that raised a number of tough questions – and questions are often so much more interesting than answers, aren’t they? The subject of creativity and copyright has been handled at length on diginomica by Chris Middleton and I think Mallaghan’s comments pretty much chime with most of that.
I was particularly taken by the point about the impact on the younger generation of having at their fingertips AI tools that can ‘do everything, until they can’t’. I recall being horrified a good few years ago when doing a shift in a newsroom of a major tech title and noticing that the flow of copy had suddenly dried up. ‘Where are the stories?’, I shouted. Back came the reply, ‘Oh, the Internet’s gone down’. ‘Then pick up the phone and call people, find some stories,’ I snapped. A sad, baffled young face looked back at me and asked, ‘Who should we call?’. Now apart from suddenly feeling about 103, I was shaken by the fact that as soon as the umbilical cord of the Internet was cut, everyone was rendered helpless.
Take that idea and multiply it a billion-fold when it comes to AI dependency and the future looks scary. Human Intelligence matters
UNESCO, in collaboration with the Ministry of Transport and Communications, Catalpa International and national lead consultant, jointly conducted consultative and validation workshops as part of the AI Readiness assessment implementation in Timor-Leste. Held on 8–9 April and 27 May respectively, the workshops convened representatives from government ministries, academia, international organisations and development partners, the Timor-Leste National Commission for UNESCO, civil society, and the private sector for a multi-stakeholder consultation to unpack the current stage of AI adoption and development in the country, guided by UNESCO’s AI Readiness Assessment Methodology (RAM).
In response to growing concerns about the rapid rise of AI, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence was adopted by 194 Member States in 2021, including Timor-Leste, to ensure ethical governance of AI. To support Member States in implementing this Recommendation, the RAM was developed by UNESCO’s AI experts without borders. It includes a range of quantitative and qualitative questions designed to gather information across different dimensions of a country’s AI ecosystem, including legal and regulatory, social and cultural, economic, scientific and educational, technological and infrastructural aspects.
By compiling comprehensive insights into these areas, the final RAM report helps identify institutional and regulatory gaps, which can assist the government with the necessary AI governance and enable UNESCO to provide tailored support that promotes an ethical AI ecosystem aligned with the Recommendation.
The first day of the workshop was opened by Timor-Leste’s Minister of Transport and Communication, H.E. Miguel Marques Gonçalves Manetelu. In his opening remarks, Minister Manetelu highlighted the pivotal role of AI in shaping the future. He emphasised that the current global trajectory is not only driving the digitalisation of work but also enabling more effective and productive outcomes.
Publishing stands at a pivotal juncture, said Jeremy North, president of Global Book Business at Taylor & Francis Group, addressing delegates at the 3rd International Conference on Publishing Education in Beijing. Digital intelligence is fundamentally transforming the sector — and this revolution will inevitably create “AI winners and losers”.
True winners, he argued, will be those who embrace AI not as a replacement for human insight but as a tool that strengthens publishing’s core mission: connecting people through knowledge. The key is balance, North said, using AI to enhance creativity without diminishing human judgment or critical thinking.
This vision set the tone for the event where the Association for International Publishing Education was officially launched — the world’s first global alliance dedicated to advancing publishing education through international collaboration.
Unveiled at the conference cohosted by the Beijing Institute of Graphic Communication and the Publishers Association of China, the AIPE brings together nearly 50 member organizations with a mission to foster joint research, training, and innovation in publishing education.
Tian Zhongli, president of BIGC, stressed the need to anchor publishing education in ethics and humanistic values and reaffirmed BIGC’s commitment to building a global talent platform through AIPE.
BIGC will deepen academic-industry collaboration through AIPE to provide a premium platform for nurturing high-level, holistic, and internationally competent publishing talent, he added.
Zhang Xin, secretary of the CPC Committee at BIGC, emphasized that AIPE is expected to help globalize Chinese publishing scholarships, contribute new ideas to the industry, and cultivate a new generation of publishing professionals for the digital era.
Themed “Mutual Learning and Cooperation: New Ecology of International Publishing Education in the Digital Intelligence Era”, the conference also tackled a wide range of challenges and opportunities brought on by AI — from ethical concerns and content ownership to protecting human creativity and rethinking publishing values in higher education.
Wu Shulin, president of the Publishers Association of China, cautioned that while AI brings major opportunities, “we must not overlook the ethical and security problems it introduces”.
Catriona Stevenson, deputy CEO of the UK Publishers Association, echoed this sentiment. She highlighted how British publishers are adopting AI to amplify human creativity and productivity, while calling for global cooperation to protect intellectual property and combat AI tool infringement.
The conference aims to explore innovative pathways for the publishing industry and education reform, discuss emerging technological trends, advance higher education philosophies and talent development models, promote global academic exchange and collaboration, and empower knowledge production and dissemination through publishing education in the digital intelligence era.
yangyangs@chinadaily.com.cn
-
Funding & Business7 days agoKayak and Expedia race to build AI travel agents that turn social posts into itineraries
-
Jobs & Careers7 days ago
Mumbai-based Perplexity Alternative Has 60k+ Users Without Funding
-
Mergers & Acquisitions7 days ago
Donald Trump suggests US government review subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies
-
Funding & Business6 days ago
Rethinking Venture Capital’s Talent Pipeline
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Why Agentic AI Isn’t Pure Hype (And What Skeptics Aren’t Seeing Yet)
-
Funding & Business4 days ago
Sakana AI’s TreeQuest: Deploy multi-model teams that outperform individual LLMs by 30%
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Astrophel Aerospace Raises ₹6.84 Crore to Build Reusable Launch Vehicle
-
Funding & Business7 days agoFrom chatbots to collaborators: How AI agents are reshaping enterprise work
-
Jobs & Careers4 days ago
Ilya Sutskever Takes Over as CEO of Safe Superintelligence After Daniel Gross’s Exit
-
Funding & Business4 days ago
Dust hits $6M ARR helping enterprises build AI agents that actually do stuff instead of just talking
