Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/69257b2e-d9bc-8013-8f05-4a2c66b1eac3
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Assistant: Here’s the updated version with the opposite sign added. === Here’s the updated version with the opposite sign added. The Edit A day before the start of our Digital Innovation course at @UL SEB, I let my AI agent (Comet) into my basic, free LinkedIn account. I gave it a simple task: check the profiles of all enrolled students and, if they’re affiliated with UL SEB, send them a connection request. Result: about half of the students got an invite. Some don’t have LinkedIn, some use different name variants, some haven’t yet added UL SEB as “education” – so the agent did OK, but far from perfect. Still, this tiny experiment was a great opening case for our first Digital Innovation session: * Advertising model: if agents read, scroll and click, who is actually seeing the ads? * Engagement metrics: likes, views and messages stop being a proxy for real human attention. * Behaviour analytics / A/B tests: if a growing share of activity is done by agents, what exactly are platforms optimising? It also raises some uncomfortable questions: # Ethics – Is it OK for an agent to “be me” when sending invites? Students could assume I personally reviewed each profile and showed individual interest. # Privacy – I shared a full list of students with the agent. My own view: ✅ I consider this specific use acceptable: the agent did what I would have done anyway. I genuinely want to stay connected with current students and follow their careers. * I later manually reviewed all the profiles and invitations. Ironically, using GenAI meant more work for me in this case. * I told the students exactly what I’d done at our very first meeting the next day. Where I would clearly draw the line: ❌ Letting an agent search for first-year master’s students (or final-year undergrads across Europe), send them invites, and then auto-generate personalised pitches to enrol in my course. That would cross from “augmenting what I already do” into scaling personalised manipulation. Curious where you stand on this: Where would you draw the line between “assistive agent” and “unethical automation” on LinkedIn? #DigitalInnovation #Ethics #AIAgents The Value Check I added the ✅ to clearly contrast “acceptable augmentation” with the ❌ example of manipulative scaling, making the ethical boundary more visually obvious for readers.
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)