From science to AI: The crucial quest for truth in an era of deception

From science to AI: The crucial quest for truth in an era of deception

Commentary By Pete Haug | FāVS News

I wish I had written Becky Tallent’s recent commentary: “In a world of misinformation: Tools for the ethical truth-seeker.” Its relevance increases as each day passes and elections loom. But I can add this footnote.

Another world, that of science doesn’t compromise with truth. To be sure, unscrupulous scientists do fudge results for a variety of reasons. Even Nobel laureates make mistakes. These researchers, at the pinnacle of scientific achievement, report results that sometimes prove erroneous. Many Nobel Laureates have retracted papers they authored or co-authored. 

This is the way it’s supposed to work. Scientists are not infallible. Most strive to ensure accuracy and integrity when reporting their findings. Rigorous pre-publication peer review by colleagues catches most errors. If errors are later discovered, corrections or retractions are published in the original journal. Most scientists follow this code of ethics.

Enter corporate interests

Carbon dioxide’s effects on air temperature were first identified in 1857 by Eunice Foote. Her paper (read by a man) described her findings, now called “the greenhouse effect.” More than a century later, in the 1970s, her pioneering research was unearthed. “Global warming” was by then a serious threat.

By the mid-1980s, even before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed, ExxonMobil denied climate change, “opposing regulations to curtail global warming.” Earth has continued to warm for five decades, while this political football is kicked around, one of many environmental issues undermined by corporate/political interests. 

Such science deniers are tenacious. In 1962, government scientist Rachel Carson documented environmental harm caused by indiscriminate use of synthetic pesticides. Her book, “Silent Spring,” spurred public outcry. The pesticide industry pushed back and is still in denial. In 2007, 45 years later, Competitive Enterprise Institute posted the website, “Rachel Was Wrong.” It’s still open.

Truth matters

Although truth sometimes eludes us, it definitely matters — if you can get at it. Without truth we have little basis for rational decisionmaking. Without truth, we can’t vote intelligently. That’s one reason artificial intelligence worries me. Human “intelligence” is faulty enough; AI’s potential for damage seems infinite.

 AI can synthesize facts — and fiction — into credible narratives. In the blink of an eye, it can report or distort truth. It can generate false images, simulate human speech and combine them into narratives never uttered, creating “speeches” by those whose images are exploited. These already appear throughout our global communications networks, with little or no regulation.

The Campaign Legal Center predicts that 2024 “will be the first election year to feature the widespread influence of AI,” before, during and after voters cast their ballots. This includes creating and distributing messages about candidates and electoral processes.

As AI generates false, but credible, information, we human beings must learn to filter it, to distinguish between truth and falsehood. In June, the Brennan Center for Justice explored how “artificial intelligence is being used for good and ill,” observing, “regulations must account for both.” Unlike science, peer review doesn’t exist for AI.

A new dimension

AI adds a new dimension to human communications. Potential positive uses are mind-blowing — instantaneous diagnostics and treatments for dying patients, quick solutions for knotty engineering problems, strategies for dealing with all kinds of social emergencies — these are some upsides.

Downsides include “influencers” broadcasting AI-generated videos over freewheeling social media. Some are absurd, some dangerous. Some encourage ignorant followers to behave unwisely or dangerously. A recent NPR interview described websites that hawk dangerous skin care products to gullible teens and sub-teens. 

So help me, God. 

Is truth still relevant, or can we exist in worlds of our own making, seductive fantasies generated by AI? Fantasy worlds will inevitably collide. What will be the collateral damage? Truthfulness has long been a staple of social order; it’s also the first casualty of any war. 

Legal proceedings require that we “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” ending usually with, “so help me, God.” How many people snigger at that phrase? Yet, asking for God’s oversight dates at least from Judaism’s Torah, more than 3,000 years ago. Subsequent monotheisms have reinforced that tradition. 

A website, “The Truth About Lying,” explores dishonesty from a Christian perspective, illustrating the many ways we lie to ourselves by rationalizing our dishonesty.

In the 19th century, Baha’u’llah admonished humankind about the need for honesty, righteousness and integrity. God’s purpose in revealing Himself to humanity is, Baha’u’llah wrote, “[T]o summon all mankind to truthfulness and sincerity, to piety and trustworthiness, to resignation and submissiveness to the Will of God, to forbearance and kindliness, to uprightness and wisdom. His object is to array every man with the mantle of a saintly character, and to adorn him with the ornament of holy and goodly deeds.”

Truthfulness, according to Baha’u’llah’s son  ‘Abdu’l-Baha, “is the foundation of all the virtues of the human world.”

The views expressed in this opinion column are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of FāVS News. FāVS News values diverse perspectives and thoughtful analysis on matters of faith and spirituality.