The terms “disinformation” and “misinformation” both refer to the spread of false information, but they differ significantly in intent. Disinformation refers to false information that is deliberately created and disseminated to deceive and mislead the audience. The creators of disinformation are aware that the information is false but spread it to achieve a specific objective, which could be to manipulate public opinion, influence political processes, or cause confusion.
For example, a fabricated news story is created and shared that falsely claims a candidate was involved in illegal activities. The purpose of such a story would be to damage the candidate’s reputation and influence voters’ perceptions, with the creators fully aware that the accusations are baseless.
Misinformation, on the other hand, involves the sharing of false information without the intent to deceive. Often, the person disseminating misinformation believes it to be true. It can spread due to misunderstandings, mistakes, or a lack of knowledge about the facts. In many cases, it is done with the best of intentions.
An example would be when a person shares a social media post claiming that a certain vitamin supplement can cure a disease. The individual sharing the information may genuinely believe this claim and think they are helping others, even though there is no scientific evidence to support said claim.
The reality is that both can have devastating effects. While determining intent may be important before the court of law, the impact of either one is ultimately where the danger lies. Well-intentioned agents have perpetrated a lot of harm. Both types can be mitigated through strategies that remind us to slow down, think, and evaluate what we plan to share before doing so. One can lump both under the “misinformation” umbrella, as a catch-all term for the spread of false information, which is what we’ll do henceforth.
False information comes in many shapes and forms. According to Dr Claire Warddle, of First Draft Media, we can divide them into 7 categories:
Looking over the examples of misinformation above it is not difficult to see why this is such a pervasive problem. Most likely, all of us have at least once inadvertently passed on misinformation to our network in social media, email or through conversation. In a world that bombards us with noise, the human brain cannot possibly discern truth from falsehood every time.
With that said, this is not a new problem. As noted author Jason Thacker affirms, misinformation is another version of the age-old problem of propaganda. Empowered by advancing technological tools, agents of chaos often spread misinformation with a goal in mind. Whether it is to influence the outcome of an election, sway public opinion for or against a cause, or even to confirm and reinforce a worldview, misinformation is just one of the many new forms of spreading propaganda. As it was in the past, propaganda is successful when it gives people a satisfying part to play: someone to be, to love and hate. As it was then, regulation is much needed but certainly not sufficient.
Even so, the pervasive spread of misinformation brings with it another daunting challenge which is the “liar’s dividend,” a phenomenon where the existence of synthetic media and the capability to create realistic yet false content enable malicious actors to sow doubt about the authenticity of real information. The “liar’s dividend” fundamentally alters the dynamics of trust and truth in society. As synthetic media technology becomes more accessible and its products more indistinguishable from reality, the potential for misuse increases, complicating the efforts to maintain an informed public and a healthy democratic discourse.
Technological augmentation allows disinformation campaigns to exploit sophisticated algorithms that analyze vast amounts of personal data to identify individuals most likely to be influenced. By targeting these vulnerable groups with precision, misinformation not only finds a receptive audience but also fosters environments where it can flourish and mutate. As a result, falsehoods are not only spread more efficiently but are also more likely to be reinforced through echo chambers where contradictory information is scarce. Thus, the integration of AI technologies in the dissemination of misinformation introduces a significant amplification in the speed and reach of these campaigns.
As the magnitude of this problem becomes evident, the temptation is to move into fatalistic despair. Yet, there are things that citizens like you and me can do. Ultimately, the spread of misinformation is highly dependent on the human factor. Even a small group of informed citizens can do a lot to mitigate its spread among their networks. This is especially true in faith communities that already share strong relational bonds among its members.
We suggest five rules of thumb you can follow to mitigate the spread of misinformation:
One could summarize all these five rules into one simple piece of advice:
AI and Faith affirms the crucial role faith community plays in informing the development of AI. Hence, it is no surprise that we call on faith communities to set the standard for truth-telling in mitigating the spread of misinformation. This is especially important since recent research on COVID-19 misinformation showed a consistent association between a religious group and political misinformation. This is not to say that faith communities are more vulnerable to misinformation per se but it does show evidence of a checkered past.
There are at least three reasons why people of faith should deeply care about this topic. First, faith often dictates what is considered morally acceptable, influencing how individuals and communities respond to the challenges posed by AI-driven misinformation. Religious teachings and doctrines can offer a moral compass, guiding followers on discerning truth from falsehood. This is a crucial capacity in the era of AI, where distinguishing between authentic and fabricated information is increasingly challenging. This moral guidance can empower individuals to stop and critically assess information before passing it on, thereby mitigating the impact of misinformation and disinformation.
Second, the discussion around misinformation touches upon deep existential and philosophical questions that are traditionally in the domain of faith, such as the nature of truth, the ethics of creation, and the responsibility towards the created. As AI technologies advance, these questions become increasingly pertinent, pushing religious thinkers and scholars to engage in the conversation. Their contributions can provide valuable insights into how humanity should navigate the moral dilemmas posed by AI, including those related to misinformation and disinformation.
Third, faith influences the narratives and ideologies susceptible to manipulation by AI-driven misinformation campaigns. Propaganda agents can leverage beliefs deeply rooted in religious convictions to sow division, radicalize individuals, or mobilize groups toward certain political actions. Understanding the context in which these conspiracy theories arise is essential for developing strategies to counteract misinformation that exploits religious sentiments. It also highlights the need for a nuanced approach to AI governance that respects religious diversity while safeguarding against the abuse of technology to manipulate faith-based communities.
Hence, we invite you to read our paper which provides both a technical overview of the topic along with perspectives from multiple faiths. We believe that mitigation starts with deep reflection followed by action. As we ground ourselves on the spiritual nature of truth, we are better prepared to take a stand against misinformation.
This page was created through a collaboration of AI and Faith experts Elias Kruger, Dr. Mark Graves, Marcus Schwarting, Ed Melick and Haley Griese. We invite your feedback and additions to this pressing topic by reaching out to us here.
AI and Faith is a pluralist organization seeking to engage the world in the moral and ethical issues around artificial intelligence.
