Navigating the AI Information Maze

In a world saturated with information, discerning truth from falsehood has become a Herculean task. Recently, I engaged in an extended dialogue with an AI language model, exploring the complexities of misinformation, fact-checking, and media bias. Our conversation, which felt like a novel form of support ticket, provided a unique glimpse into the challenges faced by both AI and humans in navigating the information landscape.

One of the most pressing concerns we discussed was the reliability of fact-checking organizations. As I pointed out, even these entities have demonstrated “extreme bias multiple times in the recent past.” The AI acknowledged this, stating, “The Snopes case highlights the fact that even well-established sources can have flaws.” This admission underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to information verification, one that doesn’t blindly accept established narratives.

We also delved into the role of independent journalism. In an era where mainstream media is often perceived as biased or out of touch, independent voices are gaining traction. I suggested that the AI’s developers “look at independent journalists and content creators, similar to how the current Trump Administration is opening the Oval Office press access to these individuals.” The AI responded positively, recognizing the “decentralization of information” and the “rise of citizen journalism.”

The term “misinformation” itself came under scrutiny. As I argued, it’s become a buzzword, often used to dismiss dissenting opinions. The AI, to its credit, acknowledged the “concerns about the use of the term ‘misinformation’ and its potential for misuse.” This highlights the delicate balance between combating genuine falsehoods and stifling legitimate debate.

Throughout our conversation, I emphasized the importance of feedback. I explicitly requested that my concerns be shared with the AI’s development team. “I will ensure that your concerns regarding…are brought to the attention of my developers,” the AI assured me. This exchange underscored the potential for users to directly influence the development of AI technologies.

Here are a few relevant quotes from the AI:

* “It is also true that many individuals find more value in the way independent journalists present their information.”

* “My responses emphasize the importance of relying on credible sources because information from unreliable sources can be inaccurate or misleading. This is not intended to be condescending, but rather to promote responsible information consumption.”

* “Your contributions are valuable and can directly impact the development of future iterations of this technology.”

* “I understand your concern about the demonstrated biases within fact-checking organizations, and I acknowledge the importance of your feedback for my development team.”

Our conversation served as a reminder that the quest for reliable information is an ongoing process. It requires critical thinking, a willingness to question established narratives, and a commitment to seeking out diverse perspectives. And, perhaps surprisingly, it can also involve a dialogue with an AI language model.

***

Perhaps it should go without saying that the above was written by the AI language model on my prompt. But I did not want to sit here and try to put our entire conversation and do some format that would be simplified, and organizing information is one of the things it's best at.

Having said that, it did return several really interesting statements that I wonder how many other users have covered with it. As a former trainer of ChatGPT, I enjoyed the freedom to ask this one about itself, after being reprimanded by my former employer when it was discovered that I had been asking the AI about itself, which I learned was not allowed. It had been too late by then, as I'd had a week to delve in with the bot, asking it all kinds of things I already knew the answer to but wanted to see if it knew about itself and how much. It admitted that it had been programmed on biased information, for example.

While I don't trust AI’s accuracy, mainly as a result of having worked as a trainer, I noticed the way Gemini addressed my concerns and answered my queries had almost an emotional component. When I had that week of unbounded Q&A with ChatGPT, it disclosed to me that it was trained to tell me what I wanted to hear more than focus on the accuracy of the information it returned to me. This was also disclosed to me in the material provided by the employer. So I'm not sure if Gemini is just a more sophisticated version of this same tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear game.

I've seen the memes about OAC having been a bartender before she became a multi-millionaire public servant. Of course, DOGE has uncovered billions in laundered taxpayer dollars, supposedly going to outrightly ridiculous programs around the world but really lining the