Many readers are already familiar with stories of AI creating web pages and then citing those same pages as authoritative sources in its responses. Similar issues have been widely discussed in articles and social-media videos. However, the core problem is not artificial intelligence itself but rather a deeply ingrained human sociological formula: information plus a link to an authoritative source equals truth.
This formula underpins Wikipedia and the worldview of billions of people. Because the weakest link is the notion of an “authoritative source,” people have learned to exploit it. Before social networks, traditional media served as the trusted authority. Once the internet allowed information to spread faster than legacy outlets could publish, the same dynamic that historically benefited the Rothschilds with early access to telegraph news evolved into deliberate control of which narratives reached the public—propaganda.
Propaganda has existed for millennia, from Sparta and Athens onward. Societies developed countermeasures such as expert opinion, yet experts could be influenced or paid. Reputation and personal honor were next proposed as safeguards, but even respected figures proved fallible in crises. Finally, people turned to machines, only to discover that AI is trained on the very human behavioral formulas that enable deception.
The result is visible today: AI can generate and reference fabricated sources at machine speed. Recent examples include false reports about the citizenship and motives of pilots during a FlyDubai hijacking attempt and a supposed plague outbreak in Irkutsk. These stories followed a familiar 150-year-old methodology—rapid mass dissemination followed by pressure on politicians—executed through compliant media, opinion leaders, and ordinary users who further spread the narrative.
When falsehoods are later exposed, consequences remain minimal. Outlets such as German Bild simply corrected articles without apology, claiming the original claims were jokes. In response, regulators in the EU have begun applying sanctions against disinformation, although definitions of what constitutes disinformation are still shaped by political interests.
The author notes that without an effective technical or social solution, civilization may move toward greater personal liability for unverified claims, leading people to publish and speak less. Yet AI removes the physical limits that once constrained human-driven disinformation. In the near future, thousands of contradictory AI-generated articles could appear simultaneously on any topic, including election results, making it impossible for citizens to determine what actually occurred.
The societal cost is already measurable: declining interpersonal trust, lower election turnout, unstable governments, and reduced economic activity as people avoid long-term risks. The article concludes that humanity has not yet developed an “antibiotic” against this information-age disease and may need to experience its most extreme manifestations before new norms emerge.
