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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Article 5 of the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act is intended toregulate AI use to prevent potentially harmful consequences. Nevertheless,applying this legislation practically is likely to be challenging because ofambiguously used terminologies and because it fails to specify whichmanipulation techniques may be invoked by AI, potentially leading tosignificant harm. This paper aims to bridge this gap by defining key terms anddemonstrating how AI may invoke these techniques, drawing from insights inpsychology and behavioural economics. First, this paper provides definitions ofthe terms "subliminal techniques", "manipulative techniques" and "deceptivetechniques". Secondly, we identified from the literature in cognitivepsychology and behavioural economics three subliminal and five manipulativetechniques and exemplify how AI might implement these techniques to manipulateusers in real-world case scenarios. These illustrations may serve as apractical guide for stakeholders to detect cases of AI manipulation andconsequently devise preventive measures. Article 5 has also been criticised foroffering inadequate protection. We critically assess the protection offered byArticle 5, proposing specific revisions to paragraph 1, points (a) and (b) ofArticle 5 to increase its protective effectiveness.

Regulating AI: Applying insights from behavioural economics and psychology to the application of article 5 of the EU AI Act