AI Predicts Genocide, Media Predicts 'Both Sides'
Emad Hajjaj's 'Artificial Existentialism' hits home: an AI identifies ‘genocide’ with cold, hard data while a human frets about 'existentialism.' This isn't just about AI; it’s about human failure to confront uncomfortable truths, especially when well-funded lobbyists are involved. How many 'warnings' about impending catastrophe does one need before acting? Or, perhaps, before major news outlets
finally stop peddling euphemisms? The media's reluctance to use words like 'genocide' — even with the ICJ weighing in on plausible claims, and ample historical precedent (like the Nakba in 1948 or the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982) – speaks volumes. While AI processes data, human editors process donor lists and ad revenue. One might wonder if the algorithm's clarity is precisely what makes it
so unpalatable to those who profit from ambiguity.