The information displayed in the AIM should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its member countries.
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is considering a petition to relax restrictions on political robocalls, including those using AI-generated voices. Consumer advocates warn this could lead to a surge of misleading, unsolicited calls, risking voter misinformation and manipulation during the upcoming midterm elections.[AI generated]
Why's our monitor labelling this an incident or hazard?
The article explicitly involves AI systems in the form of AI-generated voices and AI-driven conversations used in political robocalls. The harms described include misinformation, voter manipulation, and privacy risks, which are violations of rights and harm to communities. While these harms have occurred in past incidents involving robocalls, the current event concerns a regulatory decision that could enable a large increase in such AI-enabled robocalls, thus plausibly leading to significant harm. Since the harm is not yet realized but is credible and foreseeable if the waiver is granted, the event fits the definition of an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. It is not Complementary Information because the main focus is on the potential regulatory change and its risks, not on responses or updates to past incidents. It is not Beneficial Use because the AI is not used as a countermeasure to external harm but as a tool that could cause harm. Therefore, the classification is AI Hazard.[AI generated]