By Helen Reynolds
I remember a time when seeing was believing.
A photograph captured a moment. A recording preserved a sound. A signature confirmed identity. A witness gave evidence. While mistakes and deception existed, they were the exception rather than the rule. Society functioned because most of us shared an unspoken confidence that evidence, though imperfect, could usually be trusted.
That confidence is quietly slipping away.
Artificial intelligence has arrived with astonishing speed. It writes essays, composes music, diagnoses disease, translates languages and produces artwork that can rival the work of accomplished professionals. These achievements deserve admiration. They promise advances in medicine, education, engineering and countless other fields.
Yet every powerful invention casts a shadow.
For the first time in history, almost anyone can generate a convincing photograph of an event that never happened. A video can place words into the mouth of a person who never uttered them. A familiar voice can be cloned so accurately that even close family members may hesitate before questioning its authenticity.
The technology is remarkable, but implications are profound.
For thousands of years, civilisation has depended not merely upon knowledge, but upon trust. Courts rely on evidence. Journalists rely on sources. Scientists rely on reproducible results. Businesses rely on contracts. Families rely on honesty. None of these institutions can function for long if authenticity itself becomes uncertain.
The real challenge posed by artificial intelligence may not be unemployment, as many fear. It may be something far less visible and far more fundamental: the gradual erosion of trust.
Imagine a future in which every photograph requires forensic examination. Every telephone call might be an imitation. Every viral video is dismissed as either fabricated or manipulated. Every confession can be denied as an AI forgery.
Ironically, a world overflowing with information could become a world starved of certainty.
This presents an uncomfortable paradox. Human beings have spent centuries pursuing knowledge. Libraries expanded into universities. Newspapers evolved into global media. The internet placed almost every fact ever recorded within reach of a mobile phone.
Now we face the possibility that our greatest obstacle will not be finding information, but deciding whether it deserves our confidence.
History reminds us that transformative technologies are neither angels nor demons. The printing press spread literacy while also spreading propaganda. Radio informed millions while broadcasting hatred. Television educated and entertained while sensationalising tragedy. The internet connected humanity while enabling scams, conspiracy theories and misinformation on an unprecedented scale.
Artificial intelligence is no different.
The technology itself has no conscience. It simply magnifies the intentions of those who use it.
That places an even greater responsibility upon us.
Critical thinking can no longer be considered an academic skill reserved for universities. It has become an essential life skill. Healthy scepticism must replace blind acceptance without descending into cynical disbelief. We must learn to question evidence without rejecting it altogether.
The future may belong not to those with the fastest computers, but to those with the soundest judgement.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of civilisation was never the accumulation of knowledge. It was the ability to agree upon what constituted evidence. If that agreement begins to fracture, the consequences will extend far beyond technology. They will reach our courts, our classrooms, our workplaces, our democracies and even our personal relationships.
Artificial intelligence will undoubtedly change the world.
Whether it becomes one of humanity’s greatest achievements or one of its greatest mistakes may depend less upon the intelligence of our machines than upon the wisdom of the people who use them.
In the end, the greatest challenge before us may not be creating artificial intelligence… It may be preserving human trust.
Also by Helen Reynolds
Pauline Hanson and the Polarisation of Australian Politics
The Parallel Playbook: Nationalism and Anti-Immigration
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless independent voice – holding power to account and delivering journalism that matters.
Running this site isn’t cheap. Rising costs mean we need your support now more than ever. Every donation, big or small, keeps our servers running, our writers working, and our stories free for everyone.
Donate here:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund for hosting and future improvements.
Thank you for standing with us. We couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
A sound case for re-introducing Ethics and Philosophy into the school curriculum.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_learning_revolution
https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_how_to_escape_education_s_death_valley
Along with readin’ ritin’ and rithmetic.
Heather, that’s an excellent point.
And it should continue into university as well.
We have young people graduating from university, thinking that they are now qualified in a particular field, but not having a clue as to how their knowledge should be applied in the world because they do not know how the world works.
Every university course should have an ethics and philosophy component.
Thank you Heather for reminding us that AI and the digital world does not function without human interaction.
“….In the end, the greatest challenge before us may not be creating artificial intelligence… It may be preserving human trust…./”
I am no paragon of virtue. My early years were littered with hubris and judgement and having to correct egotistical behaviour. However in the latter part of my career, being responsible for managing 32 qualified staff and trainees, I came to appreciate the full meaning of the 5 core values that my new employer required us all to observe. Shortly thereafter I modified and reduced those 5 values to 3 and rigorously applied them with whom ever I meet, and particularly with my grandchildren. My firm belief is that if you can genuinely apply “truth, honesty and respect” towards others then invariably such values are returned. To me, it is all about being trustworthy and establishing trust.
So, what are the core values for AI?
The word ‘trust’ comes in several different flavours. Helen’s essay speaks of a certain kind of social trust that is currently at threat.
Erik Erikson, the German-American child psychoanalyst who coined the phrase identity crisis, is known for his theory on psychosocial development of human beings, and in his cartography of developmental stages, trust is a very major facet, foundational to the development of all individuals irrespective of race or origin. Failure to develop trust in a <12 month-old infant potentially becomes the cause of a lifetime of dysfunctional engagement, poor attachment, poor social skills, along with a host of other unfortunate issues that will dog that infant through to its senior years.
Erikson’s theory highlighted the criticality of appropriate parenting – ideally best practice, or if not that, so-called ‘good enough,’ with anything less than those two parameters practically guaranteed to bestow a lifetime of woe to the individuals concerned.
‘Tis a very great pity that these sorts of insights receive little to no attention on the scale necessary to achieve the outcomes possible within societies.
Years ago doing a masters in construction management, after being a contracts specialist in that arena for years, I opted to do my thesis on ‘Ethics and Oz construction industry’.
Of its historical (US) establishment in the field, an entertainment of linguist subversion for convenience unfolded – a marketing ploy by capital vs the actions of labour, and competition with other corporations.
Then when it came to the associated professional institutions, out of about a dozen, they all gave it lip-service, some with incredibly contrived deflections, all sprouted codes of conduct – only three with slap-on-the-wrist penalties & six with with no penalties for breach. Of those nine none offered redress paths or guidance for the wronged. Only one institution had a proper multi-tiered peer reviewed process that could result in penalties such as naming on a published list, suspension of membership, or cancellation of membership and referral to civil/criminal authorities for prosecution, and guidance for the wronged.
Matters of quality, conformance and competence in construction can be incredibly complex and can involve long chains of information and execution interpretation, so obtaining redress for breaches can be agonizingly slow and costly. All but those with very deep pockets avoid it.
Despite Quality Assurance schemes, mandated mediations & arbitrations, nests of orgs through to the likes of VCAT and then the courts, the ‘specialist’ lawyers still have a picnic of deviations in contract formation, and later in resolving the wild beast when the profit motive sends ethics to the scrap heap.
Needless to say, its not only corporations, but govts are up to their gills in it.