LINK Truth, trust, and hope. Where to start? YLE 05/31/2023
Last week I was invited to the Nobel Prize Summit on information integrity at the National Academy of Science. I’ve attended quite a few of these types of events lately—discussions on mis- and disinformation’s impact on truth, trust, and hope. I keep noticing the same themes bubbling up. Here are a few thoughts.
Mis/disinformation is a major problem.
Truth is now debatable. The major challenge in scientific communication is that the truth is now networked by peers. Because of this, disinformation and misinformation are eroding public trust in science, becoming a threat to the planet, and costing lives. But it goes beyond a pandemic—climate change, routine vaccinations, gun violence, reproductive health. Everyone—the private sector, government, researchers, and communities nationally and internationally—is rightfully worried.
AI will make it worse.
The problems are just getting started. Before AI, false news spread 6 times faster than the truth on social media. AI will accelerate the speed, reach, complexity, and innovation of disinformation. It will create more effective content that plays on human emotion and, thus, goes viral and changes human behavior.
A prime example emerged last week when an AI-generated image displayed an explosion at the Pentagon, which impacted the stock market.
AI will diminish safety for those of us on the front lines of communication, too. AI-generated deep fakes will make it impossible to discern what is true and what is not true. The threats and smear campaigns will only get worse. For example, the president of another country shared fake porn pictures of a reporter covering an important story.
What is trustworthy? And who is trustworthy? These questions are going to get more difficult to answer with time.
Too much talk. Too little action.
There is a lot of talk about the problem. There is a lot of doom and gloom from leadership.
I don’t think this is useful. We know what to do, but I’m getting increasingly frustrated with inaction. We need to coordinate and mount a proactive and reactive response to address the biosecurity that it is:
Proactive. Prevent information voids from forming in the first place. The public, rightfully so, has many questions about health. Often they can’t find answers in a timely or digestible manner; cue health mis- and dis-information. In public health, this is where we start, given that we have very few resources on the ground. Anticipate concerns and drive national conversations. Listen. Implement a community of practice, training, and communication in plain language. There is SO much we can do, but we just aren’t moving. For example, what are we doing right now to communicate and anticipate RSV vaccine misinformation in fall?
Reactive. Providing accurate, timely, empathetic information isn’t enough. It needs to be supplemented with action to combat mis- and dis-information through monitoring, training, and support.
There is really fantastic work being done on the ground by volunteers, trusted messengers, and entrepreneurs in both of these spaces. But the support is suboptimal—to say the least—casting doubt on the sustainability.
Everyone has a role.
There is a lot of finger-pointing. Everyone thinks someone else should be doing something. And, of those who are doing something, little of their work is supported. Institutions are needed for the long-term solution:
Governments. Congressional courage is needed. In the U.S., other government entities have a role, too: the National Institute of Health (train scientists to communicate and translate; prioritize funding more research in this space), the FDA and CDC (anticipate information needs of the public), Health and Human Services (create, engage, and support communication networks), Department of Defense (create a robust, well-funded surveillance system to understand where, how, and what health misinformation is circulating in real-time), Department of Education (strengthen STEM integration). State governments have a role with medical boards and local action, too.
Academic institutions: Reward scientific communication and knowledge translation through training. Elevate this soft skill through the tenure process, for example. Where does this go on a CV?
Private industry. Some of the biggest problems aren’t the people, but rather the reward structures on social media platforms. Private industry needs to get their act together: Is this truly the future we want? The lowest hanging fruit is transparency: content moderation, algorithm impacts, data processing, and integrity policies.
Bottom line
We have a problem and we are moving at a snail’s pace—on the backs of effective volunteers who find themselves shouting for support into the abyss. We aren’t helpless, but inaction is hindering progress. Government, private industry, academic institutions—just do something. That’s how we move toward truth, trust, and hope.
Love, YLE
“Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE)” is written by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, MPH PhD—an epidemiologist, data scientist, wife, and mom of two little girls. During the day she works at a nonpartisan health policy think tank and is a senior scientific consultant to a number of organizations, including the CDC. At night she writes this newsletter. Her main goal is to “translate” the ever-evolving public health science so that people will be well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members.
7
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Best of luck. I'm with you in spirit but not action because I've already been there with Climate Change. So far, warnings about AI seems to be following exactly the same pathology as climate denial (which won the battle that will lose the war).
rainmanjr
Level 8
May 31, 2023
1
puff:
Reminds me of the hysteria of Y2K, how all computers would crash New Years Eve in 2000. I remember at work we changed the date of our servers a few months before to see what would happen..................nothing.
AI like all new technology will have pro's and cons. The scariest part for me is applying it with militarised robotics eg AI driven self targeting coordinated swarms of drones.
You should not fear AI, those in power pushing agenda's are the ones shit scared of AI.
Science should be questioned. I think a problem is the peer review process has been somewhat corrupted, especially medical science. Eg A very interesting response from ChatGP regarding US interventions.
puff
Level 8
May 31, 2023
3
That is a hard point to ignore. Add that to our crime in Iraq and it's easy to see the seeds of mistrust. For me none of it is serious as it goes away when I cease to be but I likely have another physical expectancy of twenty years so would have to realize a scenario in which Russia is vindicated. I see law breaking as wrong each time it's done and regardless of justification. Invading Ukraine was wrong so needed a reply and we had already begun investing in them. Gotta protect the investment and, frankly, I would rather not live under Russian "leadership."
Here's a possibility, though: The people of Belarus side with Ukraine as their leader dies or buckles to Putin and overthrow him. Can Putin win without getting Belarusian soldiers and access routes? IDK but I see it as a scenario.
puff:
@rainmanjr I think it more likely Ukraine will be carved up between Hungary, Poland and Russia which all have historical claims. It will cease to exist. A real shame they couldn't stay neutral with no military alliances with either the Russian Federation nor NATO. Russia was happy with that situation but unfortunately, NATO was not.
puff:
@rainmanjr Putin definitely not happy with it, he believes Ukrainians and Russians come from the same stock and the USSR made a mistake giving it republic status. This argument has some merit but is weak. The history of Ukraine is so very complex if you read up on it. So complex I think it is easiest to look in very simple terms.
Like it or not, Russia and Europe are confrontational. Ukraine is between these two blocks. Really a shame they could not be fully independent and neutral, becoming a gateway between the two cultures and celebrate and take advantage of their gateway status, showing both camps how to get along (but I digress).
The USA did everything in it's power to stop Russia and Europe from being in a cooperative relationship rather than confrontational eg were against Nord Stream, sanctioning players involved, from the very start. Military bases kept getting closer and closer to Russia.
The pro Russian democratically elected government was overthrown via coup in 2014. Pro Russian means they were looking to Russia for investment rather than the "West" aka the world bank and IMF, that's why the coup was initiated by the USA.
Like most things in this fucked up human civilization of ours, if you follow the money it helps explain things.
@puff "Russia was happy with that situation but unfortunately, NATO was not." I was responding to that quote. Since Putin thinks the nation is illegitimate he was not happy with that situation. I have heard the history of Ukraine several times and think you've got it somewhat right but somewhat wrong. Following the money often helps but not so much when the conflict is about possession. Putin wanted it, like Saddam wanted Kuwait, back. I do agree that human civ is fucked up, though.
puff:
@rainmanjr If you are correct, Putin won't use nukes in Ukraine ie you don't nuke your own country as it renders the ground useless. He will instead send them elsewhere if push comes to shove which is scary. I still think if Ukraine wasn't getting militarised by the Western powers, this conflict would not have happened.
puff:
@rainmanjr I tend to believe what Putin claimed at the start, that it was a police action to both de-militarise and de-Nazify. If he really wanted Ukraine, it would have been a full on invasion with Kyiv getting carpet bombed into oblivion and a puppet government in the wings ready to go. Early on, he never targeted civilian energy infrastructure as he wrongly assumed many Ukrainian's would be on side. That sanity would prevail ie quick negotiations to end the conflict which in very simple terms would have been an assurance from NATO they would leave Ukraine be. That changed after the Crimea bridge was attacked and then of course, Nord Stream for which Biden, Kirby and Nuland should be hung by Germany. I would add Harris should swing too, not because she was in the loop, but purely because she is VP and should have contained her bosses excesses.
@puff I think you're a Russian bot. Seriously. It's only the American Dems who are at fault for Putin's invasion of a nation. I have engaged you about as much as I want to so I'll stop now but will close by saying that I'm good with WWIII. Folks like you have made modern humanity nothing but garbage and I don't believe we're of any great importance so we can blow it all up. I'd go laughing.
I don't know why I have always been able to sort the bullshit from the facts but I have. Maybe not being so influenced by TV, not having a 'smart' phone or just thinking things through but science being challenged by so many is a scary thing.
Keep posting these from my favorite YLE!
silverotter11
Level 9
May 31, 2023
1
Part of the problem is that EVERYONE says just what you said. Most of “them” are wrong, many irretrievably so.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
2988 members
Gun Control Now
918 members
Christopher Hitchens Fans
80 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.