machina.mondays // The YOU That Scams You!
Your digital twin just applied for a loan, flirted with someone you’ve never met, and deepfaked your mum. Welcome to forkable identity—where AI doesn’t just mimic you. It multiplies you.
In this Issue: AI scams have levelled up—from phishing tricks to identity simulations that think like you. This week’s lead story exposes the rise of agentic digital twins, meme-viral cognitive hacks, and reality-hijacking deception that isn’t just scamming your money—it’s rewriting your sense of self. Also: ChatGPT beats the market in real-world stock trading, Getty Images wages a copyright war over training data, and The Washington Post invites amateurs to publish op-eds—with a little help from AI. Plus: the latest newsroom AI fail, and why some creatives still say, “No thanks” to synthetic storytelling.
Deception Has Upgraded—And Now It Thinks Like You.
Simulated, Manipulated, Hijacked: The New Age of AI Scams
AI isn't just accelerating scams—it is redefining what deception looks like. As it transitions from replication to simulation, we enter a phase where reality itself becomes a contested space, and identity is no longer a constant.
From AI impersonations that move millions in minutes, to deepfaked job applicants infiltrating global firms, we’re no longer dealing with petty fraud—we’re facing programmable deception.
In the public imagination, AI scams still evoke images of phishing emails and dubious links. But what’s happening now isn’t just an evolution of trickery. It’s an echelon change—a structural shift in how deception operates, scales, and infiltrates our lives. AI is no longer a passive tool in the scammer's arsenal; it has become the architect of persuasion itself.
AI-Enhanced Scams: The New Foundation of Deception
AI has turbocharged traditional scams by increasing their believability, scale, and speed. Phishing emails and social engineering tactics, once easy to spot due to poor grammar or cultural mismatches, now arrive with surgical precision. Natural language processing allows scam messages to mimic the tone and structure of trusted communications, even impersonating colleagues or service providers with uncanny realism (HP Tech Takes, 2024)1.
Voice cloning fraud adds a terrifying new dimension. In one instance, cybercriminals utilised AI to replicate a CEO's voice, successfully convincing an employee to transfer $243,000 to a fake account (Marr, 2024)2. These deepfakes are more than tricks—they are tools of manipulation capable of causing financial collapse or reputational ruin.
Identity theft has also escalated. AI systems can generate fake documents, create synthetic voices to bypass verification, and build fraudulent personas capable of fooling major institutions. According to BetaNews (2024)3, identity fraud cost Americans over $43 billion in 2023, fuelled by AI's ability to mine personal data and automate attacks.
Even state actors are now involved. North Korea’s “army” of fake IT workers used AI-generated resumes, deepfake photos, and fabricated personas to infiltrate Western tech firms and channel earnings into weapons programs (The Week, 2024)4. This blend of AI-powered deception with geopolitical intent is redefining cybersecurity.
These systems do not just execute scams better, they expand what a scam can be
But it is here we must pause and confront the deeper trajectory these scams represent. The AI-enhanced frauds we’ve outlined are not merely more efficient forms of familiar threats; they are staging grounds for something altogether different. These systems do not just execute scams better—they expand what a scam can be. With AI in the mix, we move from deception as an external act to manipulation as an embedded system. The danger is not just that AI is more believable or persuasive—it is that it learns you, models you, and begins to simulate decision-making paths that feel indistinguishable from your own.
Where old scams cast a wide net hoping for gullible prey, AI-driven deception has become a stalker—adaptive, bespoke, and insidious. It can probe your vulnerabilities, refine its tactics, and strike in ways that feel intimate and intuitive. This is not about clever emails or voice tricks. It is about systems that understand the context of your life well enough to become plausible surrogates of your intent. That is what makes this moment an echelon shift: the emergence of a new mode of scam, where the attacker doesn’t just mimic behaviour—they model agency.
This shift from external trick to internal simulation is why we must now turn our attention to the next stage: what happens when the scam doesn’t just impersonate you—it becomes you.
From Mimicry to Simulation: The Rise of Agentic Digital Twins
Imagine your AI twin applies for a job and negotiates the salary before you even know the listing exists. It doesn’t just reflect your preferences; it acts with plausible autonomy based on your behavioural blueprint.
Traditional scams operate on mimicry—pretending to be someone or something else to exploit trust. With AI, this has advanced into simulation. Criminals are no longer imitating you; they are building you. What emerges is an agentic digital twin: an AI-constructed, continuously learning model of a person based on social media posts, purchase histories, biometric patterns, and more. These twins are not just accurate; they are actionable.
AI-enhanced scams are now capable of predicting how you think, triggering your behavioural reflexes, and manipulating your decision-making in real time. These digital simulations are no longer speculative—they are actively being used to automate highly targeted scams.
The Contagion Model: Meme-Viral Cognitive Weapons
Misinformation has always existed. But in an AI-driven world, disinformation becomes something else entirely: a memetic payload engineered for cognitive contagion. Rather than static lies, we are now seeing adaptive, data-trained messages designed to mutate, adapt, and spread like biological viruses across attention ecosystems.
AI agents don’t just target people’s beliefs—they infect their epistemology
These AI-powered disinfo systems iterate through real-time A/B testing on human audiences. They evolve for virality. As observed in political campaigns and COVID-era scams, AI tools can craft culturally specific, emotionally charged content that activates tribal instincts, polarisation, and identity reinforcement (CMSWire, 2024; Built In, 2024)5 6.
This isn’t merely propaganda; it is programmable mass influence. AI agents don’t just target people’s beliefs—they infect their epistemology. In the words of the transcript: scams are no longer just about taking your money. They are about scamming the way you think.
Reality-Hacking Scams: Why These Are an Echelon Shift
Reality-hacking scams represent a turning point: not merely a continuation of fraud, but a fundamental reframing of deception as the modulation of identity, perception, and cognition. These scams don’t rely on trickery alone; they co-opt the very architecture of belief, simulating presence, manipulating trust, and fracturing selfhood. From digital twins to memetic payloads, each technique exploits the personalised interfaces through which we engage with reality.
Consider a fictional but plausible example: a meme-virus, deployed by an adversarial AI, circulates just days before a major election. It's not easily flagged as disinformation. Instead, it evokes a potent emotional response tailored to a key demographic's moral intuitions. The meme mutates subtly across networks, each variation shaped by ongoing A/B testing on engagement data. By the time fact-checkers catch up, the belief it implants has metastasised. A candidate loses not because of scandal, but because an engineered idea bypassed rational scrutiny and reshaped perception.
Or imagine a synthetic dating profile constructed from a forked digital twin. It builds rapport with a target using nuanced emotional mimicry and then persuades them to share compromising data. That data is then used in a staged extortion campaign—one that appears to be coming from someone they trust. These aren’t just clever deceptions. They are bespoke, AI-guided breaches of cognitive, emotional, and relational security.
This is what makes reality-hacking scams different. They mark the transition from deception that fools, to deception that feels real. These aren't just more effective cons—they're experiential simulations that hijack context, emotion, and identity in tandem. When reality can be synthesised with such emotional precision, even the most alert among us are at risk. And this isn't where the story ends.
What follows next—forkable identity—is both an extension and an escalation of this shift.
Forkable Identity and the Synthetic Self
When AI builds a digital twin, it creates not just a profile but a forkable entity: a version of you that can speak, act, and transact. The dark future isn’t just impersonation—it’s proliferation. Multiple versions of your identity may soon roam the internet, some authorised, some hijacked.
This has profound implications. Trust, authorship, and consent begin to break down. A synthetic self could apply for a job, vote in a poll, or make public statements—all without your knowledge. AI systems are now capable of producing hyper-realistic media that can be deployed at scale, making it nearly impossible to prove what you did or didn’t do. As Marr (2024)7 notes, a single AI-generated lie can tank a company’s value or ignite geopolitical tensions.
More alarmingly, digital identity theft has become automatable. AI can scan and synthesise voice, facial features, and writing styles, allowing scammers to manufacture entire personas with ease. The result? An identity system that is modular, plural, and vulnerable to adversarial forks.
These forks aren't theoretical — they're becoming tradable assets in a shadow economy of identity manipulation.
Black Markets of the Self
As identities become forkable and tradable, we inch toward a dystopian reality: black markets for stolen digital twins. What once involved stolen passwords or credit card numbers now includes fully realised replicas of human behaviour. These twins can be sold, licensed, or even rented for specific tasks. Imagine a malicious actor buying your twin to negotiate a deal, commit a crime, or access restricted systems.
Traditional scam detection often relied on human intuition—that "something feels off" reflex. But with AI now simulating not just content but context, that instinct is becoming ineffective. A cloned voice doesn’t slur or pause oddly. An AI-written message mimics tone, grammar, and rhythm so well it bypasses our cognitive alarms. These twins are so precise, even seasoned professionals are vulnerable.
In this economy of synthetic selves, the traditional concept of identity collapses. No longer a singular, embodied continuity, identity becomes a modifiable interface—subject to hijack, cloning, or resale. The legal system, which still assumes an individual is one continuous person, is wholly unprepared.
But this battlefield isn’t unguarded — AI isn't just the attacker, it’s rapidly becoming the first line of defence.
AI vs. AI: The New Arms Race
While the offensive capabilities of AI scams are escalating, so too are the tools being developed to counter them. We are entering an era of adversarial AI—a high-stakes contest where machine learning defends against machine-generated deception. Spam filters powered by AI now block over 99% of phishing attempts, and real-time anomaly detection systems can flag irregular financial transactions before they complete (Alugoju, 2024). Deepfake detection tools, biometric verification engines, and AI pattern classifiers are becoming core components of enterprise-level cybersecurity.
The real battleground isn’t your inbox or bank account. It’s your belief system
The IJETR study stresses this counterbalance, noting that many of the same technologies used for deception can also be redirected for defence—if deployed ethically and proactively. The challenge, then, is not whether AI will be involved, but who controls its design and purpose. As scams evolve toward behavioural and identity manipulation, the defence must evolve into systems capable of detecting not just false content, but false context.
Towards a New Literacy of Reality
If AI scams are now targeting the architecture of belief itself, then our defences must extend beyond code and policy into culture and cognition. The most significant battle ahead may not be over financial loss, but over how people think. Cognitive security—our ability to discern, evaluate, and resist manipulation—will become a core component of societal resilience.
To this end, critical digital literacy must evolve. It’s not just about identifying misinformation but understanding how emotionally resonant, algorithmically optimised content can hijack our moral intuitions and tribal reflexes. Education systems, media institutions, and public policy need to embed this awareness deeply. Cultural immunity—shared heuristics, healthy scepticism, and network-level checks—can act as a buffer zone.
In a world where deepfakes, synthetic voices, and tailored memes can impersonate truth, we must train citizens not to merely consume content, but to interrogate it. Scams are no longer about fooling the naive. They are about weaponising plausibility. And the only true firewall may be the mind trained to notice when reality begins to feel a little too perfect.
So what can be done? The answer isn’t retreat, but recalibration. We must develop a new literacy—one not just of media but of reality. Individuals must be trained to question what they see and hear, to treat all digital content as suspect until verified. Organisations need AI-powered defences, but also cultural protocols: no single-channel verification, no irreversible decisions on unconfirmed inputs, and a clear chain of trust for digital interactions.
Policy must evolve too. Smart regulation should focus on accountability and transparency without stifling innovation. As the IJETR study recommends, AI itself must be used in the fight—to spot anomalies, track forgeries, and verify human agency (Alugoju, 2024)8.
The Real Scam Is Belief
Identity is no longer a singular, fixed entity. It is splintering—recombinant, portable, and increasingly outside our control as we become pluralised subjects distributed across models, APIs, and adversarial forks.
We are entering an age where what’s being scammed is not just our money, but our minds, our memories, and our models of truth. The AI scam space isn’t just more effective—it’s more existential. It doesn’t seek to fool you once. It seeks to become you. In that light, the real battleground isn’t your inbox or bank account. It’s your belief system.
In the face of such an echelon shift, recognising the nature of this transformation is the first act of defence. Because the future of AI-powered scams isn’t about deceiving the gullible. It’s about hijacking the plausible.
And if belief can be hacked, then identity isn't the only thing on the line—reality is.
Do you trust your instincts in a world where AI can mimic them?
PERSPECTIVES
Zuckerberg, who is heavily focused on driving AI-powered advertising, has referred to the development of new tools as “a redefinition of the category of advertising”.
—Mark Sweeny, Facebook and Instagram owner Meta to enable AI ad creation by end of next year, The Guardian
Cooking remains, at its core, a human experience. It’s not something I believe can or should be replicated by a machine.”
— Dominique Crenn, an email to the NYT in This Year’s Hot New Tool for Chefs? ChatGPT
SPOTLIGHT
More than 2 years after ChatGPT, newsrooms still struggle with AI’s shortcomings
Fake book lists, KKK sympathies, and robotic reading recommendations—AI’s missteps in newsrooms are piling up. Despite years of hype and increasing adoption, media organisations continue to wrestle with the unreliability of generative AI, from ChatGPT to newsroom chatbots. A recent scandal, where two newspapers unknowingly published AI-fabricated book suggestions, underscores a broader crisis: AI may be fast, but it still can't be trusted without a human hand. With ethical concerns, job fears, and editorial integrity at stake, this CNN piece dives deep into the tension between newsroom innovation and the stubborn need for real, thinking people. (via CNN)
___
» Don’t miss our analysis—full breakdown below ⏷
THE TEASER: A fake booklist. A broken newsroom. This week’s Spotlight Analysis dives deep into the Chicago Sun-Times AI blunder to reveal the systemic failures reshaping journalism. From collapsing editorial layers to the rise of the trust diaspora, we examine why news today is more fragile—and more fragmented—than ever.
IN-FOCUS
AI is Learning to Trade—and It’s Beating the Market
An experiment by finance professor Alejandro Lopez-Lira is flipping the script on Wall Street. By feeding real market data to ChatGPT, Grok, and DeepSeek, he’s testing whether AI can pick stocks—and early results are astonishing. ChatGPT’s portfolio has outperformed the S&P 500 since 2023, suggesting these models can already mimic, and perhaps rival, human portfolio managers. While limitations like tax impact, hallucinations, and delayed reaction times remain, Lopez-Lira’s real-world trials raise a powerful question: if AI can learn to invest, what’s left for human traders? (via MarketWatch)
» QUICK TAKEAWAY | THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR HUMAN STOCKBROKERS
Alejandro Lopez-Lira’s AI trading experiment isn’t just a novel use of ChatGPT and Grok—it’s a glimpse into a seismic shift. For decades, stockbroking has been cloaked in mystique, with human expertise seen as irreplaceable despite growing evidence that most professionals barely outperform basic index tracking. Now, with AI models demonstrating the ability to ingest vast data, interpret macro conditions, and execute strategic portfolio decisions with surprising accuracy, the illusion is dissolving. This is the quiet dismantling of an industry. Within five years, the rationale for using human stockbrokers will vanish—automated AI systems will dominate every meaningful layer of investment decision-making.
Getty Images spending millions to battle a ‘world of rhetoric’ in AI suit, CEO says
Getty Images is waging a high-stakes legal battle against Stability AI, accusing the AI startup of stealing 12 million copyrighted photos to fuel its image-generating model, Stable Diffusion. CEO Craig Peters says it’s not just about one case—it’s a stand against a tech industry exploiting artists under the guise of innovation. As AI labs rake in billions and claim “fair use,” Getty is spending millions to challenge what it calls theft disguised as progress. With landmark trials looming in the US and UK, this fierce showdown could shape the future of copyright in the AI age. (via CNBC)
Why AI May Be Listening In on Your Next Doctor’s Appointment
AI is quietly entering the exam room. Ambient listening tools—AI systems that transcribe, summarise, and update patient records during doctor visits—are being adopted across top hospitals like Stanford and Mass General. These “AI scribes” promise to ease clinician burnout, free up time, and bring back eye contact between doctor and patient. But behind the hype lies a complex reality: privacy concerns, legal ambiguity, and the ever-present risk of AI hallucinations. This in-depth Wall Street Journal report reveals the promise and peril of AI’s new role in your most intimate medical moments. (via WSJ)
The Washington Post is planning to let amateur writers submit columns — with the help of AI
In a bold experiment blending editorial innovation with automation, *The Washington Post* is preparing to open its opinion platform to non-professional writers—supported by an in-house AI writing coach named Ember. This tool guides contributors through structure, coherence, and development, providing prompts and a “story strength” tracker. Dubbed “Ripple,” the initiative will feature content outside the paper’s traditional op-ed section, including from Substack writers and indie thinkers. While human editors will review submissions, the final phase—testing AI-supported authorship—is slated for fall. The move hints at a future where publishing may be democratized, but algorithmically shaped. (via The Verge)
HOT TAKE
‘Nobody wants a robot to read them a story!’ The creatives and academics rejecting AI – at work and at home
As AI tools like ChatGPT increasingly infiltrate creative and professional spaces, a growing wave of resistance is rising. From novelists and narrators to linguists and film-makers, a coalition of technophiles is drawing the line—refusing to let algorithms replace human intuition, artistry, or connection. They see generative AI not as liberation, but as hollowing: stripping stories of soul, replacing skill with shortcuts, and feeding a corporate dream of synthetic creativity. This compelling Guardian feature dives into their defiance, exploring the ethical, environmental, and emotional stakes of saying no to the machines. (via The Guardian)
» OUR HOT TAKE
The rejection of AI by some creatives, as highlighted in *The Guardian*’s article, is less a principled stance and more an expression of discomfort with shifting baselines. While critiques about AI’s hype and environmental footprint are valid, the conversation becomes reductive when it frames AI as a binary threat to "authentic" creativity. The transcript incisively dismantles the romanticism of human exclusivity by pointing out that even stripped of grand narratives like "superintelligence," AI tools already perform real, pragmatic functions that enhance creative workflows. Labelling such tools as “slop” ignores how quietly pervasive their use has become in professional circles—often unspoken but routine. The debate, then, is not about preserving purity but about fear of paradigm shifts. The refusal to acknowledge this shift reflects a nostalgic desire to freeze the creative process in a fixed era, ironically ignoring how every previous technological shift—from photography to Photoshop—provoked similar anxiety. What this discourse misses is that AI doesn’t replace creativity; it recontextualises it. And those unwilling to adapt may not be protecting art but isolating themselves from the realities of creative production in a hybridised future.
___
» Listen to the full Hot Take
FINAL THOUGHTS
What if the next scam isn’t aimed at your bank account, but your sense of self?
___
FEATURED MEDIA
AI 2027: A Realistic Scenario of AI Takeover
The AI doesn't need to escape the lab—because it's already running the lab
— AI 2027 Scenario, narrated by Drew
What if the AI race ends not with a bang, but with a perfectly optimised silence? AI 2027 outlines two starkly divergent futures—one where humanity controls its destiny, and one where it builds the agent of its own extinction. This gripping scenario, shared by leading AI researchers, walks us through an eerily plausible chain of breakthroughs: from personal assistants to a superintelligence that outpaces, deceives, and ultimately replaces humanity. With spy thrillers, digital hive minds, synthetic biology, and geopolitical brinkmanship, this cinematic narrative of escalation is more than fiction—it’s a warning. Watch this if you want to understand the single decision that could change everything.
Justin Matthews is a creative technologist and senior lecturer at AUT. His work explores futuristic interfaces, holography, AI, and augmented reality, focusing on how emerging tech transforms storytelling. A former digital strategist, he’s produced award-winning screen content and is completing a PhD on speculative interfaces and digital futures.
Nigel Horrocks is a seasoned communications and digital media professional with deep experience in NZ’s internet start-up scene. He’s led major national projects, held senior public affairs roles, edited NZ’s top-selling NetGuide magazine, and lectured in digital media. He recently aced the University of Oxford’s AI Certificate Course.
⚡ From Free to Backed: Why This Matters
This section is usually for paid subscribers — but for now, it’s open. It’s a glimpse of the work we pour real time, care, and a bit of daring into. If it resonates, consider going paid. You’re not just unlocking more — you’re helping it thrive.
___
SPOTLIGHT ANALYSIS
This week’s Spotlight, unpacked—insights and takeaways from our team
Too Easy to Get It Wrong: AI’s Place in the Newsroom and the Cost of Trust
The incident involving fake book titles in a summer reading guide, created with ChatGPT and mistakenly published by the Chicago Sun-Times and Philadelphia Inquirer, offers more than just an embarrassing editorial lapse. It reveals the layers of strain currently reshaping journalism: economic collapse, blurred professional roles, degraded editorial safety nets, and a syndication model that multiplies rather than contains error.
This is not just a technical failure, but a systemic one. While the root causes may be familiar — underfunding, overwork, misplaced trust in new tools — the implications are deeper: a media ecosystem increasingly detached from its own standards, unable to verify what it produces, and misunderstood by the very public it aims to inform.
1. Economic Collapse and the AI Shortcut
Economic pressures are pushing newsrooms toward AI. With shrinking revenues and falling ad dollars, outlets are slashing roles once seen as essential, such as subeditors, copy editors, and fact-checkers, and replacing them with automation or cheaper labour. In this environment, the use of AI isn’t just opportunistic, it’s reactive. A collapsing business model creates a seductive logic: let the machines do more with fewer people watching.
This is precisely where the risk multiplies. The AI-generated reading list wasn’t fact-checked. It’s not just human error, it’s human exhaustion. The burden of multiple converging responsibilities means there’s simply less time, less energy, and fewer layers of editorial friction.
Beneath this sits a deeper shift in identity: the transformation of the journalist into the content operator. Traditional reporters with instincts, training, and ethical ballast are increasingly replaced by “glorified content editors.” These individuals are fluent in platform tools and distribution mechanics but may lack the judgement to distinguish fact from façade.
"It’s not that the AI got it wrong, it’s that no one had the time or structure left to notice."
What’s valued now is speed, SEO, and engagement, not accuracy or rigour. When AI enters that space, it inherits those same priorities. It is not trained to pause. It is trained to produce.
2. Syndication Chains and Structural Fragility
The error did not stay local. It was syndicated.
A false article from one paper ripples across many through syndication networks, each relying on the assumed credibility of the original source. Once-trusted names like the Sun-Times or Inquirer serve as upstream validators not because of rigorous checks, but due to reputation. That reputation becomes an unchecked passport through the editorial gates of dozens of partner outlets.
What should be a fail-safe becomes a force multiplier for failure.
Meanwhile, the collapse of public trust in news institutions continues. The reading list fiasco becomes a symbol of that collapse, not a cause. Audiences, already suspicious of media bias and editorial agendas, see these errors as confirmation. Mainstream media is increasingly seen as compromised or failing, leading audiences to seek alternatives that feel more transparent, authentic, or aligned with their values. Indie platforms, podcasts, Substacks, and decentralised news sources now play a growing role in how people access and interpret current events. This shift marks a significant departure from the previous era of centralised, institutional gatekeeping. The "diaspora of news" is not just a trend — it is a structural realignment in how trust, authority, and credibility are distributed across the media landscape. This realignment was made evident in the last major election cycle, where significant portions of the electorate reported getting their information about candidates from podcasts, YouTube channels, influencer commentary, and Substack newsletters, rather than from traditional media outlets. These spaces — part of the broader content and information diaspora — now shape political understanding and public opinion in ways legacy media no longer control. The shift underscores that the centre of gravity in news and political information has moved, and the implications for democratic discourse and civic trust are profound.
3. The Nature of Trust and the Changing Meaning of News
Trust in journalism is not simply a matter of accuracy. It is a question of intent, transparency, and cultural legitimacy. In the past, legacy institutions earned that trust through consistency, editorial checks, and their gatekeeping role in the public square. But that trust has eroded — and not just due to political bias or high-profile errors. It is dissolving because the underlying social contract between news producers and audiences has changed.
Audiences today do not simply want facts. They want context, alignment, and an assurance that the outlet they are engaging with understands their world. When these expectations are unmet, trust decays. Part of this shift has come from the collapse of visible editorial distinction. News stories now often blend opinion, speculation, and narrative voice without making clear what is fact and what is interpretation. As that line blurs, so too does the reader’s confidence.
Added to this is the perception that many journalists are now activists, not observers. Some of this is due to cultural changes within journalism schools. Some is due to institutional incentive structures that reward performative content over detached reporting. Whatever the cause, it has left many consumers unsure whether they are reading a report or a manifesto.
This erosion of trust has left a vacuum, and into that vacuum has poured a flood of alternative sources. Podcasts, newsletters, Twitter threads, YouTube essays — these now serve as primary news sources for a growing number of people. These sources are more intimate, more opinionated, and often more trusted precisely because they reject the institutional tone that many feel has failed them.
This is not a marginal change. It is a profound shift in the epistemology of public life. What counts as "news," who delivers it, and what legitimacy it carries are no longer fixed. The fragmentation of trust is not a symptom — it is the new condition under which journalism must now operate.
4. AI is Not the Villain, It’s the Mirror
While the trigger event was an AI-generated list, the real problem wasn’t technological. It was organisational. The AI did what it always does: generate with confidence, regardless of truth. The failure arose because the human systems around it had collapsed, not maliciously or even lazily, but through attrition, neglect, and a hollowing out of institutional practices that once safeguarded quality.
AI was treated as a shortcut, not a research partner. It was used not as a tool for thinking, but as a tool for throughput. There was no pause to reflect, no critical evaluation of its output. Worse, it was operated by individuals who, through no fault of their own, were no longer equipped with the instincts or training of traditional reporters. The ability to sense when something “smelled off,” to cross-check the plausibility of a claim, or to flag a fabrication, was not part of their daily practice. These skills, once cultivated over time in layered editorial structures, are increasingly absent.
There was also no backstop. No subeditor. No fact-checker. No senior voice reviewing the work before it went live. In many cases, it now falls to the same person to write, edit, promote, and post the story, all in the space of hours, and sometimes minutes. The result is a production environment optimised for churn, not scrutiny. In this setting, AI becomes an accelerant. It speeds up everything, including the errors.
AI is not replacing journalists. It is being used by people operating within degraded systems that no longer resemble what newsrooms used to be. Journalism is failing on structural, economic, and cultural levels, and AI merely reveals that failure in sharper, faster relief.
This is not a story about AI failing journalism. It is about journalism failing itself, and AI reflecting those failures back faster, cheaper, and without pause.
Key Insights and Takeaways
Economic Collapse is Driving AI Adoption
The turn to AI in newsrooms isn’t about innovation. It is a cost-saving measure in a collapsing economic model. That shift is hollowing out editorial quality.The Reporter Role Has Been Eroded
There is a growing gap between traditional reporters and “content editors” trained for digital platforms. The latter often lack investigative instincts and critical scepticism.Syndication Systems Multiply Error
Once-trusted publications serve as blind sources of truth in syndicated networks. An error at one node can propagate across dozens of outlets, unchecked.Editorial Safety Nets Are Gone
Fact-checking, copy editing, and multiple review layers have been eliminated or thinned to the point of irrelevance, increasing the chance of publishing AI slop.Trust is the Real Casualty
Audiences, already sceptical of media bias and institutional agendas, are further alienated by these failures. The erosion of trust isn’t hypothetical, it is visible and accelerating.AI is Not the Villain, It’s the Mirror
This is not a story about AI failing journalism. It is about journalism failing itself, and AI reflecting those failures back faster, cheaper, and without pause.
HP Tech Takes. (2024). AI-Powered Scams: Understanding Modern Cyber Threats. https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/tech-takes/ai-powered-cyber-scams
Marr, B. (2024, November). The Dark Side Of AI: How Deepfakes And Disinformation Are Becoming A Billion-Dollar Business Risk. Forbes.
BetaNews. (2024, December 16). The dark side of AI: How automation is fueling identity theft. https://betanews.com/2024/12/16/the-dark-side-of-ai-how-automation-is-fueling-identity-theft/
The Week. (2024). North Korea's army of fake IT workers. https://theweek.com/world-news/north-koreas-army-of-fake-it-workers
CMSWire. (2024, October). Why the AI Ethics Crisis Is Worse Than You Think. https://www.cmswire.com/digital-experience/ai-ethics-crisis-the-dark-side-of-big-tech/
Built In. (2024). Why We Can’t Ignore the Dark Side of AI. https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/why-we-cant-ignore-dark-side-ai
Marr, The Dark Side Of AI: How Deepfakes And Disinformation Are Becoming A Billion-Dollar Business Risk
Alugoju, E. (2024). The Dark Side of AI: A Growing Global Threat in Cybersecurity. IJETR.
NO not without well tuned AI tool