Chloe Smith explains why it is ultimately up to citizens to filter misinformation.
 
“It is the world’s biggest election year. Billions of citizens are going to the ballot box, including in the UK later this year. These elections will be the first to happen since the recent significant advances in AI. Security services say this technology will almost certainly be used to try to manipulate those elections’ results.

We have already seen it happen. The elections in Taiwan in January have been tampered with by foreign agents. As such, “the UK and its allies cannot be complacent to the threat of foreign cyber interference and attempts at influencing our democratic processes,” reports GCHQ, the UK’s cyber intelligence agency.

But just how worried should we be about the influence of AI on UK elections?

AI could clearly be a catalyst for all sorts of illegal activity during an election. In UK terms, as well as comprising libel or slander, communications offences or offences under the new Online Safety Act, AI-powered communications could fall into the longstanding offence of making a false statement about a candidate’s personal character or conduct.

As such, enforcement agencies will need to move quickly on large numbers of allegations during the election campaign. These bodies should take steps now to reassure the public that they are ready for the general election.

The UK has both a sophisticated system of electoral governance and a prominent leadership role in the development of AI. Our national approach to this technology is wise, looking to balance safety with innovation. I am proud to have helped make some progress on global safety, initiating and hosting the Bletchley Summit and Declaration in 2023 and starting the first AI Safety Institute. Domestically, UK regulators have been tasked with setting guidance for this new technology.

In the hot seat among these regulators is the Electoral Commission. They oversee elections, political finance and electoral transparency. Local councils work with them to run each poll, and the police oversee electoral offences. All of those bodies will be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the UK’s electoral process in light of the new threats posed by developments in AI.

However, not all questionable actions will be offences. Some argue that new laws are needed to change that. They are wrong.

Our underlying electoral law is sound because it simultaneously respects people’s autonomy and their ability to make informed choices. For one, some argue that the ban on false statements about political candidates should extend to policy promises and statements; not just conduct or character. This would be grossly wrong. First, it would be unworkable, because there cannot be a central watchdog for all policy and facts. Second, it would be unjust, because it strips responsibility from people making up their own minds, and puts a state-appointed watchdog in charge instead. Finally, and crucially, freedom of speech in an election context means debate; campaigners must rebut points they disagree with and explain why rather than having a watchdog do it for them.

People making the opposite argument are looking for a huge and dangerous new legal idea. Electoral law has to be workable. As Constitution Minister, I legislated to increase transparency in online campaigning with new digital imprints, but the limits of what could be defined by law were soon clear.

The law during an election is a vital and levelling framework, but that is all it is. It is for the people to choose according to their own preferences, and not for the law to dictate what they ought to prefer. In the elections of 2024, with more fake content than ever before, this will not be easy. It may well be noisy and unpleasant – and there will indeed be hostile forces who want to get their own way – but the only effective answer is to re-emphasise people’s free judgement and choice. Those are the bedrock of democracy, whether the information they see is legitimate or not.

That is not to say that nothing should be done. Where it comes to private companies taking measures, I welcome that social media firms are working on new safeguards against altered content, such as the transparency mechanisms offered by Meta, Google, X and TikTok. These help users to judge what they see. Tech firms should also continue to develop tools against illegal content. This is all work-in-progress and there will be much to do to overcome complexity and controversy.

But I also strongly endorse the assurance that the UK Government provides through the Defending Democracy Taskforce. For instance, as a part of it, the National Cyber Security Centre identifies and responds to threats and offers expertise to all parts of our elections. It goes further by working with our allies around the world to share insights and approaches to help improve collective cyber resilience of global democracy. Regulators and enforcement agencies could help further by explaining their preparedness.

It is a daunting world in 2024, but new laws for UK elections are not the answer. Rather, preparation, assurance and transparency are the right qualities by which governments and regulators can ensure public trust. Citizens make their own free choices about the credibility of the information they see, and we should hold firm in our faith in that.

Chloe Smith is the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Norwich North and the former Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, as well as the former Elections Minister.

This article was published in the latest edition of Centre Write. Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue. 

Read more from our June 2024 Centre Write magazine, ‘Generation AI?’ here.