English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The EU AI Act Article 5 is designed to regulate AI manipulation to preventpotential harmful consequences. However, the practical implementation of thislegislation is challenging due to the ambiguous terminologies and the unclearpresentations of manipulative techniques. Moreover, the Article 5 also sufferscriticize of inadequate protective efficacy. This paper attempts to clarifyterminologies and to enhance the protective efficacy by integrating insightsfrom psychology and behavioral economics. Firstly, this paper employs cognitivepsychology research to elucidate the term subliminal techniques and itsassociated representation. Additionally, this paper extends the study ofheuristics: a set of thinking shortcuts which can be aroused for behaviorchanging from behavior economics to the realm of manipulative techniques. Theelucidation and expansion of terminologies not only provide a more accurateunderstanding of the legal provision but also enhance its protective efficacy.Secondly, this paper proposes five classical heuristics and their associatedexamples to illustrate how can AI arouse those heuristics to alter usersbehavior. The enumeration of heuristics serves as a practical guide forstakeholders such as AI developers, algorithm auditors, users, and legalpractitioners, enabling them to identify manipulative techniques and implementcountermeasures. Finally, this paper critically evaluates the protectiveefficacy of Article 5 for both the general public and vulnerable groups. Thispaper argues that the current protective efficacy of Article 5 is insufficientand thus proposes specific revision suggestions to terms a and b in Article 5to enhance its protective efficacy. This work contributes to the ongoingdiscourse on AI ethics and legal regulations, providing a practical guide forinterpreting and applying the EU AI Act Article 5.

Regulating AI manipulation: Applying Insights from behavioral economics and psychology to enhance the practicality of the EU AI Act