When AI Defines Truth, Divisions Grow

People are understandably anxious about the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) systems.  There are serious moral, economic, and social issues that arise in a world where synthetic “brains” perform jobs and make decisions in place of humans.  As AI takes over social media platforms and other online repositories of human knowledge, it is unsettling to see algorithmic entities policing language and curating established “truths.”  The more widespread that AI becomes, the more dominant it will become in “defining” our world.

There is a race underway to define what is “true.”  Certain members of society have long imposed unwritten rules of “political correctness” to manipulate the “acceptable” limits of public debate.  Certain governments are increasingly criminalizing thoughts and words as “disinformation” or “hate speech” to stifle free speech, silence dissent, and protect forms of institutional power.

As tech companies and government bureaucracies “teach” AI to enforce speech rules upon human populations, “politically correct” propaganda and censorship will spread exponentially.

We humans are not prepared for what is coming.  In increasingly fractured Western societies, the public cannot agree about anything.  We already read different websites and pay attention to different social media influencers.  As AI becomes more adept at influencing our opinions, we become more vulnerable to those who wish to distort or obscure the truth.

The novelist Ann Bauer wrote a thread on X the other day in which she shared parts of an online conversation she had with a “nice” Minnesota woman.  The woman had sent Bauer pictures of the makeshift Renee Good memorial in Minneapolis that included numerous images equating federal immigration enforcement to the Holocaust.

Incensed by the obscene comparison, Bauer responded by pointing out that Holocaust remembrance groups had strongly objected to the way Governor Tim Walz has been describing legitimate law enforcement actions as tantamount to the murder of six million Jews.  To the Minnesota woman’s credit, she acknowledged that she had no idea that Holocaust groups had condemned Walz for the comparison.

Bauer replied by stating that, as much as she personally “deplored” the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, she blamed Governor Walz for creating a “dangerous, violent situation” meant “to run cover for the fraud investigations.”  To which the woman inquired, “What fraud investigations?”  After sending the woman articles concerning the multi-billion-dollar Somali fraud scandal in Minneapolis, the poor lady later exclaimed, “Oh my God.  Do we ever get the money back?”

Though exasperated, Bauer wants readers to know that “this is not a stupid woman,” but “she’s busy.”  “She relies on MN media for her news.”  Describing the plight of Minnesotans, generally, Bauer rues, “They have no freakin’ idea what’s going on.”

I have seen this sharp information divide all over social media platforms.  Outside of Minnesota, a lot of Americans wish that President Trump had officially declared leftist anti-ICE agitators in Minneapolis to be engaged in insurrection against the federal government.  They wish the president had flooded Minnesota with troops in order to put an end to the political left’s armed rebellion against law enforcement agents.

This recurring phenomenon in which Democrat-aligned groups are permitted to riot in Democrat cities without suffering any criminal repercussions sustains the growing sense that two-tiered “justice” exists in America in which Democrat politicians, prosecutors, and judges aggressively harass political opponents while protecting political allies.

Inside Minnesota, however, there is a widespread belief that confrontations against federal ICE agents in the state are indistinguishable from the civil rights protests of the ‘60s.  Businesses have signs on their front windows saying, “ICE Out!”  Church pastors implore congregants to shield immigrants from federal authorities.

There is endless online chatter about how the whole “mood” in and around Minneapolis is weighed down by dread and depression about the federal government’s law enforcement actions in the state.  Meanwhile, those locals seem completely oblivious to the reality that ICE agents are rounding up pedophiles and murderers living among them and rescuing trafficked children from dangerous homes.  The disconnect is staggering.

The Minnesota information divide — in which locals and outsiders see the ongoing riots against ICE agents so differently — is mostly a result of self-identification.  Democrat-leaning Minneapolis residents tend to trust what Democrat Governor Tim Walz and Democrat Mayor Jacob Frey say.  When Democrat leaders describe ICE agents as “Trump’s Gestapo,” Democrat voters nod their heads.

Those voters listen to leftist voices on local NPR radio, watch leftist commentators on MSNOW, and share information on social media groups that are hostile to non-leftists.  Self-selection prevents conflicting viewpoints from “contaminating” dominant leftist narratives.  Online leftist “safe spaces” such as Bluesky actively censor anything that challenges leftist orthodoxy.

As divided as society already is today, imagine how much more divided it will become as AI takes over the role of “information curator” for large chunks of the population.  As algorithms become even more adept at filtering information and sequestering people according to their perceived political alignment, the remnants of society’s shared “public square” will largely disappear.

We will complete our transformation into plural societies living beside each other but separated by incompatible worldviews.  We will become incongruous tribes beholden to contradictory “facts.”  The more we abandon real human debate and rely upon artificial definitions of “truth,” the more likely that neighbors will become strangers.

This “brave new world” of ours is not for the faint of heart.  Democrats in the United States have already repeatedly tried to establish “governance boards” to police the Internet for so-called “disinformation” and “hate” speech.  On the other side of the Atlantic, the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act and the European Union’s Digital Services Act are structured to eliminate public dissent to official government policies.  Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron dismissed unregulated free speech as pure “bullshit.”

While Western governments become increasingly antagonistic toward citizens’ natural right to free expression, those governments describe the future of online communication as one in which AI will monitor everything and “objectively” police “false” or “hateful” information.  A vast technological infrastructure for dominating our minds is being built all around us, and an era of unmitigated government propaganda is about to take effect.  The Minnesota information divide will soon look small compared to the divisions yet to come.

Thirty years ago, the rise of the Internet appeared liberating.  People living under the yoke of dictatorships had access to information that could help set them free.  People with limited access to books could find a lifetime’s education right at their fingertips.  People who had been taught to hate each other could find common purpose online.

Despite providing all of these great gifts, our online connections now isolate and divide us.  It is as if we rolled the Trojan horse inside our own homes until the day when AI could burst out and subdue us.  Instead of liberating our minds, we risk becoming prisoners under the watchful eyes of self-replicating digital wardens that intend to hide from us what we are “not allowed” to know.  In this new world where governments and synthetic entities work together to keep us under their control, thinking “outside the box” becomes more important than ever.

Politicians already “divide and rule” over us.  AI systems will do the same.  Freethinkers capable of becoming real leaders will have to push back against both malevolent humans and malicious machines.