You Ask, I Answer: Generative AI and Public Relations, Part 3 of 5

In today’s episode, we tackle the challenges and ethical dilemmas of integrating AI into public relations in part three of my five-part interview with Stephanie Moore. You’ll discover the critical importance of understanding how AI works, its limitations, and how to mitigate potential issues like hallucinations. We’ll delve into the complex world of AI ethics, exploring the nuances of legal considerations, deontology, and consequentialism, and how these concepts apply to the responsible use of AI in PR. Watch now to gain a nuanced perspective on navigating the ethical landscape of AI in the world of public relations!

You Ask, I Answer: Generative AI and Public Relations, Part 3 of 5

Watch this video on YouTube.

Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here.

Listen to the audio here:

Download the MP3 audio here.

Machine-Generated Transcript

What follows is an AI-generated transcript. The transcript may contain errors and is not a substitute for watching the video.

Christopher Penn: In today’s episode—this is part three of five of an interview I did with Stephanie Moore of Kent State University about generative AI in public relations.

Stephanie Moore: Oh, that’s great. Great examples. Okay, good. All right. So, we talked about the benefits. Now, let’s go on to the challenges and limitations. So, what are the main challenges faced by PR professionals, communications professionals, when integrating AI into practice?

Christopher Penn: Knowing how to use the thing. Language models are good at language. Ergo, they should be handed the language tasks.

Non-language tasks should not be handed to language models, like math. They’re not particularly good at math—and neither are PR people—but language models, in particular, they can’t count, right? Because that’s not the way the architecture under the hood works. And a lot of people—this is not just PR people, but a lot of people—do not understand the mechanics of how these, these tools actually work under the hood. And, therefore, they kind of assume that either they’re—they’re—they’re people, on the one hand, say, “It’s just autocomplete,” which is not true. Or, on the other hand, they say, “It’s mad—it’s magic,” which is also not true.

That—that is the primary limitation and challenge that everybody—including PR professionals—faces with AI: not knowing how the technology works, not knowing what its limitations are, not knowing what a hallucination is, and how you reduce the likelihood of that happening, or which tools you use.

There’s a great tool from Google called NotebookLM that is as close to zero hallucination as you can get because it will only read the data you provide it. So, it doesn’t know a thing. You give it data, and you say, “Tell me what’s in here.”

So, not to get too political, but there’s this one document that people have been talking about in the US presidential election that is put out by one of these parties. It’s a 900-page document. I wanted to see what is being said in this document from the source itself, not relying on existing coverage and other people’s opinions. So, I put it in NotebookLM, and I asked it a series of questions. And I said, “What does this document say about this?” And it spits back, “On this page and this citation, right here, is what it says.” And I look at it, I go, “Wow, people weren’t—weren’t lying, like this thing is scary as hell.” But it returned truthful, cited, grounded data.

So that’s—you know—another aspect of this there. And there are, of course, you know—one of the big issues that PR firms, particularly, need to be thinking about is, from a legal perspective, when a machine creates something, it does not have copyright. This is true in all but five countries on the planet.

There was a case in the United States called Naruto v. Slater, in which a chimpanzee took a selfie. And the photographer went to court—it was a court case against PETA—and the court ruled, “Well, the chimp took the photo, not you. Therefore, the chimp did the work. Therefore, the chimp would technically hold the copyright, but chimps can’t hold copyright. Therefore, the photo is in the public domain because there is no copyright.”

That ruling has been extended to anything machine-created, which is good, and it should stay that way. But knowing that means that if you’re publishing something on behalf of a client and you’ve used machines to generate it fully—meaning you didn’t derive it from an existing work—then there is no copyright on that. And if your agency claw—if your agency contract has a line in it saying you assign copyright to the client, you are technically in breach of contract because you can’t assign copyright to something that is copyrightable.

Stephanie Moore: That is so important. Okay, good. So, we talked a little bit about the legal concerns. What are some—what are some key ethical concerns related to using AI?

Christopher Penn: What do you define as ethics?

Stephanie Moore: That’s a great question. Well, I suppose you can look at the codes of ethics within the field. You talked a little bit about billing, you know, in terms of—there, I’m sure that there are some ethical implications associated with that and how you bill clients if—if you use a tool such as this and then take the work and pass it off on your—as your own. I mean, those are ethical implications. So, I see a lot of different ethical concerns.

Christopher Penn: Those are not AI ethics, though. Those are human ethics. Those are human—those are human failings. Like, if you’re lying, you’re lying. A machine can help you lie better, but you’re still lying. There are three areas here, right? So, there’s legal, right? You’re—what you’re required to do by law. In the EU, for example, they just passed the EU AI Act, which, if you’re familiar with GDPR, is probably going to be the gold standard for AI legislation around the world. There’s a bunch of provisions in that, but you have to comply with the law. There’s—there’s no getting around that.

In ethics itself, there’s two branches of ethics, right? There’s deontology and consequentialism. Deontology says ethics is the rules of the—rules of the—rules are inherently good. If you follow the rules, you are good. If you don’t follow the rules, you are bad. Consequentialism says the rules vary based on the situation. What matters is the outcome. If you’re doing more harm than good, you’re bad. If you’re doing more good than harm, you’re good. And so, these are the two major branches.

In AI, when it comes to the use of AI itself, all the tech companies, by default, have had to go consequentialist: let’s avoid doing harm. Partly because you can’t anticipate every possible situation, but also because deontology is inherently based in moral code.

Christopher Penn: And so, if you are a Jew, you have a certain moral code. If you’re a Muslim, you have a certain moral code. If you’re a Buddhist, you have a certain moral code. They’re all different. Which one’s right? We’ve been fighting wars for centuries—millennia—about who’s right, and there’s no answer. So, you can’t build a general-purpose AI tool on deontological technological principles. It has to be consequentialist.

And so, when it comes to AI ethics, then it is “how can—how can we help these models?” This is something that’s baked into every single—while be helpful, harmless, and truthful. Now, the companies, when they build these tools, they heavily weighted towards harmless because that’s what you can get sued for. Like, “Oh, this tool told me how to kill myself.” Like, “Okay, let’s—say it doesn’t—we’re gonna say it won’t allow you to do that.” So, it will sacrifice helpful, and it will sacrifice truthful to be harmless. If harmless is off the table, it will prioritize helpful over truthful. That’s how you get hallucinations.

Hallucinations are, essentially, when—if you think about the models, knowledge is a library. Some models are really big, really big libraries; some models are really small libraries. And the model tries to go into the library and pull a book off the shelf that answers your question—wants to be helpful—but it may not have the exact book you’re looking for. So, you say, “I want The Joy of Cooking.” The model goes into the library, says, “Don’t see that. I’ll grab the closest one here. This is The Joy of Sex. That’s what you wanted, right?” Like, “No, they’re not the same at all.” “Well, it’s close. It’s close.” That’s how hallucinations happen.

And so, helpful, harmless, truthful is a general good rubric for consequentialism, but it has tradeoffs. And those tradeoffs are it’s going to be harmless first, it’s going to be helpful next, and it’ll be truthful last.

That, obviously, has bigger implications on things like the media landscape because “truthful,” depending on your political persuasion, may or may not be really important, right? Depending on whether you get paid as a journalist on page views and clicks. We have a capitalist ecosystem that prioritizes performance. And so, as a journalist, you will say things that may—depending on your publication and your own personal ethics—may or may not be true, just so that you can get a paycheck. Again, these are not AI problems. These are human problems.

However, AI is an amplifier. This is—I’m going to paraphrase from Captain America—it takes the good and makes it great. It takes the bad and makes it worse. It makes everything more of itself. It’s like salt, right? You put it on a food, makes it taste more like the food. And as a result, if you are—if you—if AI is in the hands of someone who is ethically problematic, it’s going to make them worse.

Stephanie Moore: It makes sense.

Christopher Penn: If you enjoyed this video, please hit the like button. Subscribe to my channel if you haven’t already. And if you want to know when new videos are available, hit the bell button to be notified as soon as new content is live.

You Ask, I Answer: Generative AI and Public Relations, Part 3 of 5

Machine-Generated Transcript

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Pin It on Pinterest