{"id":184601,"date":"2025-08-29T12:53:14","date_gmt":"2025-08-29T12:53:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/184601\/"},"modified":"2025-08-29T12:53:14","modified_gmt":"2025-08-29T12:53:14","slug":"future-perfect-mailbag-is-ai-lying-and-other-reader-questions-answered","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/184601\/","title":{"rendered":"Future Perfect mailbag: Is AI lying? And other reader questions, answered."},"content":{"rendered":"

For the last few years, we\u2019ve been asking Future Perfect newsletter readers<\/a> what their biggest questions are. And while we usually answer privately, we figured we\u2019d try something new: a reader mailbag!<\/p>\n

This week, we\u2019ve answered questions from three readers on classic FP issues: artificial intelligence, animal welfare coverage, and, of course, altruistic kidney donations. We\u2019d like to do more of these, so if your question wasn\u2019t featured \u2014 or privately answered \u2014 please stay in touch for a chance to be included in the future.<\/p>\n

Sign up here<\/a> to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re also kicking off the process for our annual Future Perfect list of changemakers<\/a>. We\u2019re looking for experts, humanitarians, activists, movers, and shakers in global health, broadly speaking.<\/p>\n

If there is someone you want to nominate, a topic you want explained, or a question you want us to answer in the future, fill out this form<\/strong><\/a> or email us at futureperfect@vox.com. \u2014 Izzie Ramirez, deputy editor<\/p>\n

By which methods can one ascertain that whatever is produced by AI is exact and truthful?<\/strong><\/p>\n

For any question you\u2019re considering asking an AI model, the first thing you need to do is think about its epistemic nature: Is the answer knowable in an objective way? Or is it subjective?<\/p>\n

The best use case is a situation where it\u2019s hard for you to come up with the answer, but once you get an answer from the AI, you can easily check to see if it\u2019s correct. I find chatbots particularly helpful for semantic search \u2014 that is, cases where I say, \u201cThere\u2019s some psychology theory or idea in philosophy that basically says XYZ, but I can\u2019t remember what it\u2019s called or who said it, help!\u201d The chatbot will give its best guess, and then I can just fact-check that.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/a><\/p>\n

ILLUSTRATION – 17 May 2024, North Rhine-Westphalia, Cologne: A person works at a computer with an illustrative image generated by artificial intelligence on the screen, showing code from various programming languages and a neural network diagram. At the meeting of telecommunications ministers on May 21, the EU countries are expected to finally adopt the AI law in the EU. The European Parliament had already given the green light for the project beforehand. Photo: Oliver Berg\/dpa (Photo by Oliver Berg\/picture alliance via Getty Images) Oliver Berg\/picture alliance via Getty Images<\/p>\n

Same with other empirical facts that are verifiable through observation or data \u2014 anything from \u201cWhat\u2019s the boiling temperature for water?\u201d to \u201cIs it true that humans share 98.8 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees?\u201d While you can easily verify the first by yourself through observation, you\u2019ll need to rely on experts\u2019 data for the second. In that case, you need to feel confident that what\u2019s produced by your fellow humans is exact and truthful. We\u2019ve developed tools that increase our confidence, like the scientific method, so if you\u2019re consulting scientific experts, you can at least have some degree of confidence that they\u2019re reporting observable and repeatable facts.<\/p>\n

Then there are domains that are inherently subjective. If you\u2019ve got the type of question for which there is no One True Answer, you\u2019ll want to be more hesitant about using AI. I think ethical dilemmas fall into this category; no matter how much OpenAI tries to create a \u201cuniversal verifier<\/a>,\u201d AI will always be limited in its ability to advise you on how to handle an ethical dilemma<\/a>, because there\u2019s no One True Ethics<\/a>. So, you might see what thoughts an AI model provokes in you, but don\u2019t trust it as giving you the final answer, especially if what it\u2019s saying seems off to you. In other words, you can use it as a thought partner, but don\u2019t treat it like an oracle.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Sigal Samuel, senior reporter <\/p>\n

Ok, after more than five years as a vegan and 73 years on the planet, I want to know why the great majority of journalists consistently abandon everything they learned about objectivity when it comes to a multitude of issues with the monster industry known as \u201canimal agriculture?\u201d And I want to know how to combat that bias effectively.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is a huge blind spot for most of them. My best guess is the conditioning is so strong. It starts as a toddler, is reinforced by the parental relationship, expands to extended family, friends, reinforced again by all types of advertising media, entertainment, etc. Then they go to journalism school and are taught by instructors who also have this blind spot.<\/strong><\/p>\n

So later a reporter will go to a \u201cchicken farm\u201d and empathize with them when they tell their story about losing thousands of birds to avian flu \u2014 their sense of loss is not about the birds; it\u2019s about the money. The reporter presents the story without questioning the basics. Things like \u201cwhere are all the male birds?\u201d [and] \u201chow is it possible for anyone to think that 35,000 birds could be forced to live together in a building without reasonable access to the outdoors?\u201d and \u201cwhy does it smell so bad?\u201d and \u201cwhy do you have permission to confine animals without their permission?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think the reason is pretty simple: Journalists are people with their own biases, just like everyone else. That\u2019s evident in how little coverage factory farming receives in the first place \u2014 it involves the abuse of billions of animals<\/a> and hundreds of thousands of workers<\/a>, and is a leading cause of many of our environmental problems<\/a>, yet only a handful of US journalists write about it full-time (including yours truly). Most news outlets and editors don\u2019t take factory farming seriously, which is why I\u2019m proud to work at Vox, where we do.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the most fundamental problem. But secondarily, while there is plenty of fantastic coverage of factory farming, more often than not, I find I\u2019m disappointed with a lot of it, too. I see a few recurring issues:<\/p>\n