Different Communities, Different Aspects: The Consensus About Truth is Elusive
For centuries, people have struggled with the idea of “truth” — whether in religion, politics, or history. What’s shifting now is that AI has become part of that battleground. Instead of simply debating human interpretations of events, people are asking whether machines can define or distort truth.
Some of you may ask why is so hard to find consensus amongst people about truth and can AI help us.
Problem is in multiple narratives where history and current events are rarely one-dimensional. Different communities emphasize different aspects, which makes consensus elusive.
AI will not resolve that issue, because AI systems don’t create truth; they reflect the data they’re trained on. If that data is biased, incomplete, or controversial, the AI’s outputs will mirror those fractures.
AI is now seen both as potential arbiter of truth — because it can process vast amounts of information quickly, and potential distorter of truth — because it can amplify fringe sources or generate misleading content.
This duality makes people uneasy. When Grok or ChatGPT outputs something controversial, the debate isn’t just about the statement itself — it’s about whether AI should be trusted as a truth-teller at all.
What’s really happening is that AI has exposed the fragility of consensus. People are realizing that “truth” isn’t a fixed object but a negotiated space.
The hunt for truth hasn’t disappeared — it’s just moved into a new arena. AI is not the final word on truth, but it’s a catalyst that reveals our disagreements more starkly. In a way, that’s healthy: it reminds us that truth requires human responsibility, dialogue, and humility.
AI doesn’t redefine truth, but it redefines how we argue about truth. The lack of consensus isn’t a failure — it’s a mirror showing us how diverse, fractured, and complex our human narratives really are.
On top of that, when authority meddles and takes sides, it often makes it even harder to openly express different perspectives and to expose facts that are deliberately buried in order to maintain peace within the house. That's why governments, institutions, and tech companies often want to set boundaries (e.g., banning hate speech). Meanwhile, individuals may feel those boundaries restrict open inquiry. This tension fuels the perception that “truth” is being redirected or controlled.
To be honest, I believe people will never reach a consensus on finding the truth. With or without AI, we remain stubborn humans who would rather continue killing each other than establish real truth and arrive at a shared understanding of history.
Author: Mel Reese
EMAIL ADDRESS:
melreese72[at]outlook[dot]com
For centuries, people have struggled with the idea of “truth” — whether in religion, politics, or history. What’s shifting now is that AI has become part of that battleground. Instead of simply debating human interpretations of events, people are asking whether machines can define or distort truth.
Some of you may ask why is so hard to find consensus amongst people about truth and can AI help us.
Problem is in multiple narratives where history and current events are rarely one-dimensional. Different communities emphasize different aspects, which makes consensus elusive.
AI will not resolve that issue, because AI systems don’t create truth; they reflect the data they’re trained on. If that data is biased, incomplete, or controversial, the AI’s outputs will mirror those fractures.
AI is now seen both as potential arbiter of truth — because it can process vast amounts of information quickly, and potential distorter of truth — because it can amplify fringe sources or generate misleading content.
This duality makes people uneasy. When Grok or ChatGPT outputs something controversial, the debate isn’t just about the statement itself — it’s about whether AI should be trusted as a truth-teller at all.
What’s really happening is that AI has exposed the fragility of consensus. People are realizing that “truth” isn’t a fixed object but a negotiated space.
The hunt for truth hasn’t disappeared — it’s just moved into a new arena. AI is not the final word on truth, but it’s a catalyst that reveals our disagreements more starkly. In a way, that’s healthy: it reminds us that truth requires human responsibility, dialogue, and humility.
AI doesn’t redefine truth, but it redefines how we argue about truth. The lack of consensus isn’t a failure — it’s a mirror showing us how diverse, fractured, and complex our human narratives really are.
On top of that, when authority meddles and takes sides, it often makes it even harder to openly express different perspectives and to expose facts that are deliberately buried in order to maintain peace within the house. That's why governments, institutions, and tech companies often want to set boundaries (e.g., banning hate speech). Meanwhile, individuals may feel those boundaries restrict open inquiry. This tension fuels the perception that “truth” is being redirected or controlled.
To be honest, I believe people will never reach a consensus on finding the truth. With or without AI, we remain stubborn humans who would rather continue killing each other than establish real truth and arrive at a shared understanding of history.
Author: Mel Reese
EMAIL ADDRESS:
melreese72[at]outlook[dot]com