Cotton Eyed Joe

Why Not an AI Fact Checker?

                                                       

                                        

                                                Beelzebub

As I was  listening to the recent presidential debate I thought of another use for AI. It could be used to expose lies. There could be a red light installed above each candidate which would come on if he/she told a lie. It could even be more specific, differentiating between inaccuracies, evasion, exaggeration, claims inconsistent with previous actions, statements or policies. If the candidate challenged the machine, it could provide documentation, or even recordings of previous remarks.  I can imagine a candidate being laughed off the stage. From what I understand about AI, this would be an easy task. 

I guess politicians have always lied, or at least exaggerated, either to discredit the opposing candidate or to boost their own reputation. My grandmother used to tell a story about my uncle’s first campaign for the Oklahoma State House of Representatives. His opponent accused him of cattle rustling! Grandmother’s response was, “If he’s stealing cattle, I don’t know where he’s putting them.” He won anyway. 

I can remember my mother, who today would be considered a political junkie, complaining about the liars and crooks in politics. Back then Oklahoma was a one party state, which made it easier to get away with lying if the politician was in good standing with the party. She used to argue with another of her brothers, a judge, who believed it was important to support your party, so that party policies could be enacted. He was a expert debater, but I thought she held her own pretty well. 

It seems to me that things are different now. It used to be that a politician caught in a lie would be embarrassed. He/she would have to explain themselves, come up with an excuse, claim he forgot or was misunderstood. It seems that there are more lies now. Politicians don’t hesitate to change their positions, or flat out contradict previous statements, and there’s no backlash.   

How in the world could a person like George Santos ever get elected to anything? He lied about his education, his birth, his accomplishments. He claimed his grandparents were Holocaust survivors, that he was a volleyball champion, that he was a wealthy businessman and philanthropist, all lies, but still was elected to Congress. His lies were bad enough that he was expelled, but it’s a sign of the times.  Lying is more acceptable now. Even the senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, now supports Donald Trump,  even though after the January 6^th insurrection he stated that Trump was responsible. 

Lying is not only accepted, it has become a strategy. Steve Bannon, an outspoken right wing spokesman said, that if you “flood the zone with shit” the public can’t deal with so many lies, so can’t make decisions. That strikes at the root of democracy. How can the electorate make decisions if they don’t know who they can trust? 

Another observation, just as alarming, was made by historian Anne Applebaum, quoted by Brian Stelter in a recent Time magazine article: "sometimes the point isn't to make people believe a lie—it's to make people fear the liar." It’s to assert power over reality. If you lived under the power of a ruthless leader, truth would become irrelevant. Ask a North Korean or Russian. 

That’s why I propose using AI for fact checking. You could load it with background information about politicians’ records and previous statements, about historical and current events. It could be fast enough to provide an immediate response during a speech. It could rate politicians on honesty and performance. Let’s do it! The future of our democracy might depend on it.