Layers and Layers of What?

There was a Panic in 2020, which some will remember. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) invaded our environ and impacted us individually, collectively, and societally. There was a great deal of uncertainty, pseudo-science, and debate over several years. See The (un)Masked Man (September 2021). 

There were theories early in the Panic - some surrounded an open air meat market with vendors selling wild game. Other theories suggested that the Panic might stem from a laboratory leak in China. The press was very hard on any such suggestion in the midst of the Panic, but by 2023 there were some prominent government agencies supporting the lab leak theory and the previously incredulous or even insulting press reactions had tempered. 

When the Panic started, there were the scientists urging us not to mask, then there was the ambivalent, essentially "mask if you want to," and eventually there was the mandate of masks. Some were made of paper, fabric, foam, and who knows what. Some were obviously useless (picture below). Many contended that any mask was just as useless against a virus. 

courtesy https://www.prettylittlething.us/

The use of a mask (filter) became a point of contention. There were arguments, fights, even arrests. There was unanimity on only one mask point - everyone had an opinion on masks. Beyond that, lots of equivocation, winking, and arguing. Even the type of filter became a point of contention. was fabric, paper, or foam better?

There were discussions of whether the filter protected the wearer or those around the wearer. The news media and the social media each engaged, opined, and expounded. And, beyond their quoted sources and the various opinions, there was some perception that very little science was engaged in the debate(s). 

The scientists took a great deal of heat during the panic, and there was some feeling that science had taken a backseat to a consensus. And the press was there to monetize the various dire predictions, horrid outcomes, and potential solutions (who can forget the clown with the three-foot testing swab on national television?). 

The press may or may not have been effective in investigating, vetting, and reporting that science or consensus. The pundits on social media were similarly engaged in the anecdotal, the conclusion, and the speculation. 

Eventually, the mask debate came around to the idea of "double masking." In effect, the theory is that if one mask is good, two is better. The National Institute of Health published a 2021 article Double masking: Does science coincide with common sense? There, the same scientist who decried masking in 2020 said "if you have a physical covering with one layer, you put another layer on, it just makes common sense that it likely would be more effective.” 

Science? or just "common sense?" If two is better, then is 100 even more so? There is an obvious potential for ludicrous outcomes, opinions, and conjecture. 

There was some public ridicule about masking and double-masking. Social media had much to say about the idea of masking, the science, and the scientist. But, some also perceived the press as being less engaged or investigatory. Similarly, some have recently noted that the press has been "gullible and wrong" in other instances. The point is that there are various pressures on the ideal of a free press. Some may see the pressures as emerging victorious. 

There are those who see the news media as increasingly ineffective. The Associated Press (AP) notes a "trend of impartial fact-finding being crowded out in the marketplace by opinionated news and the expectations that creates." Stated similarly, the "show" has taken the primary focus in the opinion of some. The "news show" has perhaps evolved toward or into the "show news." Think of the Eagles, Dirty Laundry (Asylum 1982).  

That AP story levels allegations of partisanship in the news. It says that some news shows "tirelessly and emotionally advocate," instead of providing dispassionate facts and information. One University contends "there is broad consensus that news media outlets adopt ideological perspectives in their articles." And, perhaps, there are consumers of the news who like this confirmation of their beliefs, consciously or not.

The simple fact is that the news is a filter not unlike the mask you might choose to wear on your face. Many decry the manner in which social media uses algorithms to filter information, feed you what you are most likely to want, and inspire or perpetuate "group think." Despite this, the news media similarly has its devotees. News programs may choose to pander to this group or that, interview this expert or that, and the effect may be indistinguishable from the algorithms that they decry. Through news or social media we might all be drawn to our own bias. 

Last fall, the owner of a social media platform declared that the people are the "new press." The suggestion is that the masses, through social engagement and posts, have replaced the journalists of old with their imprimatur of investigative acumen and prowess. And yet, it is possible that reporters of yesteryear were no more or less ideological? Was the news more fact and less opinion before the "24-hour news cycle" began in 1980? Were "the good old days all that good?" (Billy Joel, Keeping the Faith, Columbia, 1985). 

The press responded to the "new press" contention. One news provider CEO made headlines with a rebuttal to the claims, and sought to belittle those possessing "a blue check mark, a Twitter handle, and 300 words of cleverness." He characterized the social media as "popping off on Twitter." He contended that is not journalism, but opinion. Journalism, by comparison, he said is "doing hard work." And yet, that same platform in October 2024 declared the "big media era is over."

Thus there may be a fine line between modern journalism and advocacy. There may be criticisms of the press and social media, and those criticisms may be similar. Nonetheless, each has a filter. The reporter is a filter in telling the story, and an editor, publisher, producer, or owner may be that second mask. Any report may be subjected to a variety of layers before it is published. 

Similarly, the poster is a filter. The poster's followers, friends, or connections are a filter regarding a post getting traction or not. The platform and its algorithm is a filter in how widely a post is distributed. Any post may be subjected to a variety of layers through its journey to the viewer. And, it is possible that social media is a popularity contest driven by emotions more than intellect (or not).

And yet, groupthink may lead all those features of each along the same path, to satisfy some predisposition or to beat the competition to the presses. 

The social media may seem less filtered and more egalitarian, but the algorithm is nonetheless still a mask. The social platforms decide who sees what, though a personal decision to follow or "friend" someone may enhance the chances of visibility (sorry, but it pays to be pretty, athletic, and rich, welcome back to high school). The filter of dopamine-fueled groupthink expressed in likes, reposts, or otherwise may also viewed as a filter(s) to some extent.  

These thoughts came to me as I transitioned to an upgraded Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool late in 2024. I can now avoid expending time reading those long expositions in either news or volumes of Tweets (deferring to the news CEO above with "tweets," but these are Xs now). I now have the ease of simply asking my AI to "summarize." I have tried it in a variety of instances in news stories and social media. So far, it seems to reasonably encapsulate or summarize. 

Perhaps this tool will become ubiquitous? Perhaps AI is simply another filter in this regard. Simultaneously, the results we are seeing (filter), the efforts to drive us to content that we will click and consume, to the joy of advertisers, are increasingly driven by AI. The stories and posts are increasingly written, edited, or steered by AI. 

On top of the observer or reporter, the opinion maker, the editor, and the algorithm, we can now each add the AI summary as another filter. 

John Mayer criticized the media in his Waiting on the World to Change:

And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
'Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want

(Aware, 2006). Before the age of AI, he and others worried about the manipulation of data, opinion, and intent. In the end, AI is not likely to change the manipulation itself, but it will perhaps be the "BASF outcome." That company slogan is:

"We don't make a lot of the products you buy. We make a lot of the products you buy better." 

And in the same permeating and underlying spirit, AI will change a great deal. It may not make the posts, the stories, or the broadcasts, but it will engage and be engaged to make them "better." It may be used to enhance distribution, to make it "better" available or read. It goes without saying, perhaps, that "better" is an opinion, and the criticisms of opinionation are no less apt to this filter than any other. 

In the end, we can wear as many masks as we choose to, over our nose or brains. However, each one will impede our ability to breathe (or think perhaps, see Disuse Atrophy (December 2024)) at least some. How many filters would it take to smother us completely? Are the filters we select effective? And will we be wise with what we use as filters? Or, will we even notice we are wearing them?

Prior posts on AI and Robotics

Will the Postal Service be our Model for Reform? (August 2014)
Attorneys Obsolete (December 2014)
How Will Attorneys (or any of us Adapt? (April 2015)
Salim Ismail and a Life-Changing Seminar (May 2015)
The Running Man from Pensacola, Florida (July 2015)
Will Revolution be Violent (October 2015)
Ross, AI, and the new Paradigm Coming (March 2016)
Chatbot Wins (June 2016)
Robotics and Innovation Back in the News (September 2016)
Universal Income - A Reality Coming? (November 2016)
Artificial Intelligence in Our World (January 2017)
Another AI Invasion, Meritocracy? (January 2017)
Strong Back Days are History (February 2017)
Nero May be Fiddling (April 2017)
The Coming Automation (November 2017)
Tech is Changing Work (November 2018)
Hallucinating Technology (January 2019)
Inadvertently Creating Delay and Making Work (May 2019)
Artificial Intelligence Surveillance (August 2020)
Robot in the News (October 2021)
Safety is Coming (March 2022)

Metadata and Makeup (May 2022)
Long Term Solutions (June 2022)
Intelligence (November 2022)
You're Only Human (May 2023).
AI and the Latest (June 2023)
Mamma Always Said (June 2023)
AI and the Coming Regulation (September 2023)
AI Incognito (December 2023)
The Grinch (January 2024)
AI in Your Hand (April 2024)
AI and DAN (July 2024)
AI is a Tool (October 2024)

Rights for the Toaster (October 2024)
Everybody Wake Up! (October 2024)
First What is it? (November 2024)
X-Files or Poltergeist? (November 2024)

Is Gartner Helpful on AI? (December 2024)

The Eeeeyew AI Says What? (December 2024)

Is AI bad or just Scary? (December 2024)

Disuse Atrophy (December 2024)

Layers and Layers of What? (January 2025)

Wayback Machine (January 2025)