Information apocalypse or overblown fears—what AI mis- and disinformation is all about? Shifting away from technology toward human reactions

Abstract

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has ignited a debate about its effects on the mis- and disinformation landscape. The doomsday scenarios of epistemic and information apocalypse presented for many years are recently being questioned, and the previous fears are called “overblown.” These phenomena are analyzed mostly through the factors of quantity and quality of AI-powered content and the potential for personalization possessed by AI. We argue that using quantitative arguments carries a high risk of underestimating the threat, especially in the context of the so-called detection challenge. We point out that this discourse is affected by the narrow conceptualization of how we understand quantity, quality, and personalization with regard to AI. In our opinion, apocalyptic visions are speculative in nature, difficult to quantify, and carry signs of a self-fulfilling prophecy, but disregarding risks hinders appropriate countermeasures against AI-powered dis- and misinformation, which adversely affects policy-making activities. We propose a paradigm shift to focus more on social reactions to technology rather than technological attributes. By expanding the understanding of the analyzed phenomena, we indicate that the potential of AI is both overestimated and underestimated and above all—still misunderstood. Related Articles: Norman, Emma R., and Rafael Delfin. 2012. “Wizards under Uncertainty: Cognitive Biases, Threat Assessment, and Misjudgments in Policy Making.” Politics & Policy 40(3): 369–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00356.x. Robles, Pedro, and Daniel J. Mallinson. 2023. “Catching Up with AI: Pushing Toward a Cohesive Governance Framework.” Politics & Policy 51(3): 355–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12529. Veloso Meireles, Adriana. 2024. “Digital Rights in Perspective: The Evolution of the Debate in the Internet Governance Forum.” Politics & Policy 52(1): 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12571.