Intelligence: Real and Fake

A friend asked for my help discerning the difference between human and artificial intelligence in social media postings, especially photos.

Though there are certainly ways to identify when artificial intelligence has created an image, I don't think it's necessary for casual social media users to parse every picture to discern if a human being or an algorithm created it.

It’s more important to ask the image's purpose, regardless of origin. Is it to inform, entertain, or to get audiences to take some action, such as sending money? This would determine the amount of weight to put into the truth of what is being shared. 

Old Problem

Discerning the purpose of social media postings is no different from earlier media messages – published or broadcast news reports, commercials, billboards, etc.

Ideally, if the news item’s content is grounded in events attended by others or widely distributed material, inaccuracies and bias could be identified and challenged easily, putting a check on fakery.

Conversely, if access to an event was limited or material was exclusive, the message, even if legitimate, might be challenged, disavowed, or dismissed by opponents, skeptics, or neutral parties. The more transparent the information is, the better.

Messages designed to do something other than inform, like those intended to entertain or persuade, should be engaged differently because exaggeration and emotionalism are commonly used in commerce and promotion.

Confusion arises when the creator’s intentions aren’t clear. Believing an item created to manipulate is a problem, as my friend’s question attests, that evades a single solution for all scenarios and evolving technologies.

Mind Melding

This musing got me thinking about another troublesome media practice that predates artificial intelligence concerns. I call it "mind melding" after the famous Vulcan telepathic linking from the “Star Trek” series (Memory Alpha).

As depicted on TV and in film, Spock or some other Vulcan character dives into the consciousness of a sentient being, determines what is going on, and reports to the captain and colleagues what is on the other being's mind having just been there.

While working press members don't engage in this sci-fi weirdness, it's common for them to use language that suggests they know what newsmakers think or feel regarding a matter of public interest. Of course, the reporters don't know what the source is thinking or feeling. They only know what they say they are, and the two things can be quite different.

Facts And Fakery

For example, when using language like “city hall believes” or “the board chair is thinking,” news writers say they borrow techniques from the world of fiction to make their dispatches more engaging.

But they're also inviting criticism that they have strayed away from what is purely verifiable into the land of speculation and bias. Critics might say that what reporters present as informational is fakery.

We’ve seen how problematic it can be when public officials and newsmakers push false narratives that they later admit to knowing weren’t true or didn’t bother to verify, going as far as to say they’re under no obligation to tell the truth.

While this attitude about facts and fakery might be rooted in nonchalance rather than malice, the harmful effects on the public might include confusion, distrust, or the inability to identify common ground or a single set of facts to guide public affairs.

As philosopher John Dewey wrote in 1927 in “The Public and Its Problems,” “When we look in the wrong place we naturally don’t find what we are looking for” (The Public and Its Problems | Project Gutenberg).

© Jack E. Kightlinger—White House Photo/Nixon Presidential Library and Museum/NARA