Voters Must Not Let AI Muddy Modern-Day Political Waters

Artificial intelligence (AI) true believers think it's the biggest and most important invention since fire.  For a program that treats “The Onion” as a legitimate source of news and information, the “bigger than fire” assertion borders on the asinine.

But that doesn't mean AI can't be an effective, and malicious toll in the hands of those who have every incentive to use it that way. Those people would include those who work in the shadowy world of political dirty tricks. It's not of the political activities campaigns are eager to discuss – because they really are “dirty tricks.” But lying, skullduggery, and malice have been a staple of American politics since the founding.

AI, then, is the latest, and potentially most potent, tool in the dirty trickster's arsenal.

And what an arsenal it is. Consider this pre-social media example, courtesy of the Brookings Institution:

An early example of intentionally confusing the voters comes from John F. Kennedy's first run for Congress in 1946 in Boston. In Boston then (and now), the two dominant ethnic groups were Irish and Italian and the state was heavily Democratic—meaning that winning the Democratic primary was tantamount to winning the general election. Kennedy, Irish, was running in the Democratic primary against a Boston City Councilor named Joe Russo, an Italian. Kennedy's father, Joe, allegedly paid another Joseph Russo (this one a custodian with no political experience) to also run in the primary in hopes of splitting the non-Kennedy vote.

Ah, Joe Kennedy. Remember that Franklin Roosevelt put him in charge of the new Securities and Exchange Commission, which was supposed to clean up Wall Street's shadier operators, for a very good reason:  FDR “set a thief to catch a thief.”

But AI has the potential to cause more mayhem. More doubt, more confusion, than the old tools in the dirty tricksters' locker, right?

Possibly. But the one thing standing in AI's way of tossing the election into confusion is the same thing that gives it the opportunity to do so: you and me.

For all of AI's promise, and all its hype, human beings are still smarter, than the machines. We can reason, understand nuance, observe carefully and judge critically. 

We were born with the tools to distinguish fact from fiction, real from fake. We made need second opinions, expert help, and maybe a while to think thinks over…but we retain the final say over our actions.

No jumped-up version of auto-complete will ever be able to do that. 

Be warned then, that the dirty tricksters are out and determined to use whatever tools they can to muddy the political waters to their (employer's) benefit. And if in doubt about the truth behind an ad, or the veracity of a candidate's voice on the other end of the phone, your safest bet is to assume the ad is playing fast and loose with the facts (because they always have).

And would the president take time to call you personally about where to vote on election day? Maybe…if you're a close family member in good standing – or a very, very big donor. But otherwise: no way, no how, not ever. That voice on the other end is at the very best a recorded message funneled through an automated system. At worst, it's an outright fake intended to bamboozle you.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

READ NEXT: Politicians Look To Insert Themselves Into Artificial Intelligence Advances