پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 162 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 6,694 |
| تعداد مقالات | 72,265 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 129,312,605 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 102,171,555 |
رسانه‌های نوین و عاملیت معرفتی: بررسی تأثیر هوش مصنوعی بر عاملیت سیاسی- اجتماعی | ||
| فصلنامه سیاست | ||
| دوره 55، شماره 1، فروردین 1404، صفحه 273-245 اصل مقاله (591.36 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jpq.2025.382279.1008210 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| راضیه مهرابی کوشکی* | ||
| استادیار، مطالعات و همکاری‌های بین‌المللی علم و فناوری، پژوهشکده مطالعات فناوری، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| مردم‌سالاری بر این فرض بنیادین بنا شده که شهروندان بر اساس نوعی آگاهی که مبتنی بر اراده و خواست ایشان است، در امور مدنی و سیاسی مشارکت می‌کنند و نظام‌های مردم‌سالار وظیفه‌دارند به تحقق اراده جمعی در جامعه و سیاست کمک کنند. امروزه رسانه‌های نوین به‌ویژه شبکه‌های اجتماعی به کمک فناوری هوش مصنوعی به تولید و توزیع اطلاعات نادرست، جعلی و مغرضانه می‌پردازند و نظم دموکراتیک را دچار بحران کرده‌اند. به بیان دیگر مداخله و حضور فناوری‌های هوشمند در رسانه‌های اجتماعی به این مسئله بنیادین دامن زده که این اراده و انتخاب الگوریتم‌های هوش مصنوعی است که سرنوشت سیاسی و مدنی جوامع را تعیین می‌کند نه آگاهی و اراده شهروندان. درحالی‌که مشروعیت نظم دموکراتیک مشروط بر این است که بازتاب داوری حساب‌شده و سنجیده عموم مردم و نه واکنش سرسری و غیرارادی آنان باشد. پرسش اساسی این مقاله این است که هوش مصنوعی در بستر رسانه‌های نوین به‌ویژه شبکه‌های اجتماعی چگونه بر عاملیت سیاسی- اجتماعی اثر می‌گذارد و اراده و معرفت سیاسی- اجتماعی او را دست‌کاری می‌کند؟ در این زمینه با مراجعه با اطلاعات پراکنده موجود در ادبیات نظری و تجربی و احصای مهم‌ترین مضامین مرتبط، تلاش می‌شود این اثرگذاری کمتر بررسی‌شده به شکل یک الگو بازنمایی شود. بررسی کیفی داده‌ها نشان داد الگوریتم‌های هوش مصنوعی در رسانه‌های اجتماعی از طریق راهبردهای متنوعی، کنترل شهروندان بر معرفت، باورها و رفتارهای سیاسی و مدنی‌شان را دست‌کاری می‌کند که مهم‌ترین آن عبارت است از: آسیب معرفتی تدریجی، هک شناختی، فرسایش معرفت فردی، تضعیف معرفت علّی، افزایش معرفت احساسی و ایجاد فاصله معرفتی. به‌نظر می‌رسد لازمه کاستن از این اثرگذاری، فعال کردن عاملیت معرفتی شهروندان از طریق خودآگاهی آنان و آموزش تفکر انتقادی است، به‌نحوی که یک نظم دموکراتیک درونی و پایدار در افراد ایجاد شده و کنترل محیط معرفتی تا حدی از رسانه‌های اجتماعی هوشمند خارج شود. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| هوش مصنوعی؛ مردم‌سالاری؛ حباب‌های معرفتی؛ الگوریتم‌های تولید محتوا؛ اطلاعات نادرست؛ ربات‌های اجتماعی؛ رسانه‌های اجتماعی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| New Media and Cognitive Agency: Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Political and Social Agency | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Razieh Mehrabi Koushki | ||
| Assistant Professor, Faculty member of the Department of International Studies in Science and Technology, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction Knowledge serves as the foundation of culture, history, and a wide range of human actions, including the formation of moral judgments, choices, and decisions in both individual and social life. In a democratic system, the fundamental assumption is that citizens participate in civil and political affairs based on this knowledge, and democratic institutions are tasked with facilitating the natural realization of collective consciousness and will in societal and political spheres. However, rapid technological advancements, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), have introduced an intelligent yet non-human agent that profoundly impacts various aspects of human life, including how individuals understand and interpret the world around them. AI is unique in its ability to mimic and perform functions of human intelligence, such as reasoning, problem-solving, discovering meaning, generalizing, learning from past experiences, and making targeted decisions by identifying hidden patterns, rules, and relationships within data. It can also anticipate future trends, making it a powerful tool for influencing human behavior. With its integration into modern social media platforms, AI has disrupted democratic systems by enabling the production and dissemination of false, fake, and biased information. The presence of AI-driven technologies in social media has intensified a critical issue: the political and civic fate of societies is increasingly determined by the will and algorithms of artificial intelligence rather than the deliberate thought and will of individuals. This undermines the democratic ideal, which relies on the public's calculated and reasoned judgment, not their impulsive or manipulated reactions. Today, the adverse effects of artificial intelligence (AI) on public goods—such as justice, social equality, human rights, freedom of expression, and, more broadly, democracy and civil engagement—have emerged as pressing challenges for experts and sociologists to understand and address. These issues highlight the growing influence of AI in shaping societal structures and individual behaviors. This research focuses on a central question: How does a technological factor like AI, operating within the context of social networks, influence people's political and social awareness and, ultimately, determine their behavior? In other words, how do intelligent algorithms shape socio-political beliefs, justify certain choices and decisions, and invalidate others? By addressing this question, the study aims to uncover how AI technology, embedded in social media platforms, undermines human "agency" in receiving, evaluating, and interpreting information. Over time, AI itself becomes the dominant agency, steering public opinion and decision-making processes. Methodology To address the above question, this research adopts a qualitative approach, collecting and analyzing data from a range of sources. Using the library and documentary method, the study compiles the latest theoretical and experimental findings from the past eight years. Through content analysis, it identifies and evaluates the most significant cognitive effects of artificial intelligence on political-social agency, supported by available evidence. Finally, the research offers practical suggestions and solutions aimed at restoring human agency in political and social life, thereby contributing to the reinvigoration of democratic order. Results and Discussion Artificial intelligence serves as a powerful tool for both malicious government agencies and foreign actors seeking to infiltrate and disrupt. It targets political-social agency on social media through various strategies, undermining individuals' independence in decision-making and taking control of their rational, internal, and measured processes of activism. Below, we discuss the most significant strategies identified in this study: Gradual Cognitive Damage: Smart technologies in the digital space function like a "digital Pavlov," conditioning human behavior and agency through free, diverse, and highly engaging services. This process rapidly captures users' attention, shapes their worldview, and earns their trust. Prolonged exposure to these platforms can make individuals more compliant, susceptible to external persuasion, and prone to uncritical acceptance of information. Cognitive Hacking Through Micro-Profiling: AI algorithms collect personal data by identifying emotional vulnerabilities, fears, political preferences, and social interests. Using this information, they tailor and deliver political messages aligned with individuals' personality types. This enables AI to target undecided or swing voters, producing and disseminating specific information to sway their decisions in favor of a particular political agenda. Epistemic Bubbles: Artificial intelligence categorizes users into homogeneous groups through homogenizing algorithms, delivering information that aligns with their existing intellectual and value frameworks. While this may seem like personalized content, it effectively censors or restricts access to diverse perspectives. Users become trapped in "filter bubbles" or information caves, where they only encounter echoes of their own beliefs and approved thoughts, limiting exposure to alternative viewpoints. Erosion of Individual Knowledge and Trust: AI can undermine trust in an individual's cognitive capacities, gradually eroding their reasoning and critical thinking skills. Over-reliance on AI-driven information can lead individuals to forget that agency lies in their own knowledge and awareness, with technology serving merely as a tool for efficiency rather than a replacement for independent thought. Amplification of Emotional Knowledge: Exposure to a high volume of false, hateful, or fake news and information can lead to the overflow of emotional behaviors into offline actions, fostering external conflicts. In this environment, knowledge becomes intertwined with exaggerated emotions, undermining critical rationality and progressive politics, which are essential for a well-informed and balanced society. Creation of False Epistemic Consensus and Minority Dominance: Certain AI mechanisms, such as astroturfing, create platforms where fringe views are amplified to appear mainstream, dictating values and choices to the majority. This distorts the worldview that serves the interests of most people, pushing it into the background or dismantling it entirely. The result is a disoriented society led by unstable and superficially competent individuals. This cognitive disorder is further exacerbated by social and political bots, as well as false campaigns, which manipulate public perception and decision-making. Creating Epistemic Distance from Socio-Political Reality: Epistemic distance arises when information technologies create a gap between reality and cognitive agency. In this process, data passes through multiple intermediaries before reaching individuals, creating a space uniquely suited for constructing and maintaining a fabricated world. AI exacerbates this issue by continuously producing and republishing false content, such as deepfake videos, targeting rival political groups. The situation becomes particularly dire when AI-generated content is so close to the truth that distinguishing it from reality becomes nearly impossible. This blurring of lines between fact and fiction further erodes trust in information and undermines the ability of individuals to engage meaningfully with socio-political realities. Conclusion New media technologies, with their complex technical mechanisms, possess the ability to control and direct people's will and choices, shaping their understanding and knowledge of social and political realities—often without their awareness. This study observed that artificial intelligence manipulates human agency through political bots, echo chambers, deepfakes, and targeted misinformation, effectively controlling individuals' thinking, reasoning, and decision-making in political matters using various strategies. To address these challenges, the most critical and effective solution is to strengthen human agency by fostering analytical and critical thinking skills. Equipping individuals with the ability to discern and evaluate information independently can mitigate the influence of AI-driven manipulation. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Artificial Intelligence, Democracy, Cognitive Bubbles, Misinformation, Social Robots, Social Media | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Anders G. (2016). on promethean shame. In: Müller CJ, editor. Prometheanism. London: Rowman & Littlefield; pp.29-95. Anderson, J; Rainie, L. (2020). Many tech experts say digital disruption will hurt democracy. In: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/ 02/21/many-tech-experts-say-digitaldisruption-will-hurt-democracy/ Arendt, H. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism (Vol. 244). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Awan, I; Zempi, I. (2015). We fear for our lives: Offline and online experiences of anti-Muslim hostility. Tell MAMA, October. www.tellmamauk.org/wp-content/uploads/resources/We%20Fear%20For%20Our%20Lives.pdf Barber, B.R (1984). Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press, Oakland Barberá, P. (2020). Social media, echo chambers, and political polarization. Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform, 34. Barnidge, M; Kim, B; Sherrill, L.A; Luknar, Ž; Zhang, J. (2019). Perceived exposure to and avoidance of hate speech in various communication settings. Telematics and Informatics, 44, 101263. Bishop, C.M. (2006). Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer New York, NY. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2006/01/Bishop-Pattern-Recognition-and-Machine-Learning-2006.pdf Bozdag, E; Van Den Hoven, J. (2015). Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design. Ethics and information technology, 17, 249-265. Brkan, M. (2019). Artificial intelligence and democracy: The impact of disinformation, social bots and political targeting. Delphi, 2, 66. Buhmann, A; Fieseler, C. (2023). Deep learning meets deep democracy: Deliberative governance and responsible innovation in artificial intelligence. Business Ethics Quarterly, 33(1), 146-179 Caliskan, A; Bryson, J.J; Narayanan, A. (2017). Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334), 183-186. Chan, J. (2024). Online astroturfing: A problem beyond disinformation. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 50(3), 507-528. Coeckelbergh, M. (2023). Democracy, epistemic agency, and AI: political epistemology in times of artificial intelligence. AI and Ethics, 3(4), 1341-1350 Collin, F. (2013). Two kinds of social epistemology. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2(8), 79-104. Copeland, B.J. (2023). Artificial intelligence". Encyclopedia Britannica, 30 Jun. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/technology/artificial-intelligence. Accessed 1 July 2023. Costello, M; Hawdon, J; Bernatzky, C; Mendes, K. (2019). Social group identity and perceptions of online hate. Sociological Inquiry, 89(3), 427–452 Crawford, K; Calo, R. (2016). There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature, 538(7625), 311-313. Dabrowa, P. (2022). Cognitive hacking as the new disinformation frontier. Financial Times. https://www. Ft. com/content/52535b2b-cb23-4ab6-ac66-2859cf9d1ae9. Dahlgren, P. (2018). Media, Knowledge and Trust: The Deepening Epistemic Crisis of Democracy. Javnost - The Public. 25. 1-9. 10.1080/13183222.2018.1418819. Danahar J. (2016). The threat of algocracy: reality, resistance and accommodation. Philos. Technol. 29:245–268. Dumbrava, C. (2021) ‘Key social media risks to democracy. EPRS (European Parliamentary Research Service). https://www.europarl. europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2021/698845/EPRS_ IDA. 698845_ EN. Pdf Dvorak, John C.(2016) ‘The false promises of the Internet.’ https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/the-false-promises-of-the-internet Elgin, C.Z. (2013). Epistemic agency. Theory and research in education, 11(2), 135-152. Esmaeili, M; Valipour, A (2021). Feasibility study of civil liability of general artificial intelligence due to causing damage in civil law, Legal Thought, Second Volume, Fall 1400, No. 6, pp. 1-16. [In Persian] Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press Gagliardone, I; Pohjonen, M; Beyene, Z; and et al. (2016). Mechachal: Online debates and elections in Ethiopia: From hate speech to engagement in social media. Working paper. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/30572/ Godin, R.A. (2023). Deliberate Democracy, translated by Lila Sazgar, Tehran: Qoqnos Publications. [In Persian] Goldman, A; Whitcomb, D. (2011): Social epistemology: essential readings. Oxford University Press, New York. Goodfellow, I; Bengio, Y; Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT press. Gunn, H. (2018). Social-Epistemic Agency. Doctoral Dissertations. University of Connecticut, 1875. https://opencommons. Uconn. Edu/ dissertations/1875 Gunn, H; Lynch, M.P; Lackey, J. (2021). The internet and epistemic agency. Applied epistemology, 389-409. Habermas, J; Lenhart, T.C; Nicholson, S.W. (1990). (eds.) Moral consciousness and communicative action. MIT Press, Cambridge Hannon, M; De Ridder, J. (Eds.). (2021). The Routledge handbook of political epistemology. Routledge. Hao, K. (2019). ‘Why AI is a threat to democracy—and what we can do to stop it’. MIT Technology Review. https:// www. Techn ologyreview. com/ 2019/ 02/ 26/ 66043/ why- ai- is-a- threat- to- democ racyand- what- we- can- do- to- stop- it/ Accessed 26 Feb 2019 Henderson, D.P; Cole, D.J; Baulis, N. (2023). How AI is changing democracy, Nudging, microtargeting, and epistemic bubbles, published Maxim Institute, https://www.maxim.org.nz/content/uploads/2023/10/ WEB-How-AI-is-changing-democracy-Oct-23.pdf Johnson, G.M. (2021). Algorithmic bias: on the implicit biases of social technology. Synthese, 198(10), 9941-9961. Krzanowski, R; Langguth, J; Pogorelov, K; Brenner, S; Filkuková, P; Schroeder, D.T. (2021). Don't Trust Your Eyes: Image Manipulation in the Age of DeepFakes. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 632317. Longley, R. (2020). What Is Astroturfing in Politics? Definition and Examples. In: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-astroturfing-definition- and-examples-5082082 Marinucci, L; Mazzuca, C; Gangemi, A. (2023). Exposing implicit biases and stereotypes in human and artificial intelligence: state of the art and challenges with a focus on gender. AI & SOCIETY, 38(2), 747-761. Martin, K (2019). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4): 835–50 Martin-Rozumiłowicz, B; Kužel, R. (2019). Social media, disinformation and electoral integrity. International Foundation for Electoral Systems. Matsuda, M.J. (2018). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment. London: Routledge McGonagle, T; Bednarski, M; Francese Coutinho, M; Zimin, A. (2019). Elections and media in digital times. UNESCO Publishing. Mehrabi N; Morstatter F; Saxena N; Lerman K; Galstyan A. (2022). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1–35. Muller, K; Schwarz, C. (2019). Making America hate again? Twitter and hate crime under Trump. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm? abstract_id=3149103 Nguyen, C.T. (2020). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141-161. Nilsson, N.J. (1998). Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis. Morgan Kaufmann Nilsson, J. (2021). Shaping epistemic distance: producing and withholding knowledge in market research, Journal of Cultural Economy, 14:1, 101-116 Persily, N; Tucker, J.A. (Eds.). (2020). Social media and democracy: The state of the field, prospects for reform. Cambridge University Press Reider, P.J. (2016). Social Epistemology and Epistemic Agency Decentralizing Epistemic Agency (ed.), Rowman and Littlefield Rosenberg, L. (2023). The Manipulation Problem: Conversational AI as a Threat to Epistemic Agency. ArXiv preprint arXiv: 2306.11748. Ross, S. (2017). Whatever happened to the Internet’s promise?’In: https://techonomy.com/whatever-happened-to-the-internets-promise/ Savitz, E.J. (2023). Microsoft brings chatgpt to Bing. There’s finally some new competition in search. Microsoft Updates Bing To Add ChatGPT AI Technology | Barron's. Barrons. Available at: https://www.barrons.com/ articles/chatgpt-microsoft-bing-51675799472 Schlosser, M. (2019). Agency. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). https:// www. Plato. Stanf ord.edu/ archi ves/ win20 19/ entri es/ agency/. Accessed 8 Nov 2022. Schweitzer, S; Dobson, K.S; Waytz, A. (2023). Political Bot Bias in the Perception of Online Discourse. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 19485506231156020. Sun, T; Gaut, A; Tang, S; Huang, Y; El Shereif, M; Zhao, J; Mirza, D; Belding, E; Chang, K.W; Wang, W.Y. (2019). “Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Review.” In: A. Korhonen, D. Traum, and L. Marquez (eds.), Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, pp. 1630–40. Available at: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P19-1159.pdf Susar, D; Aquaro, V. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Opportunities and challenges for the public sector. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 418-426). Takhshid, Z (2021). An Introduction to the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Civil Liability. Private Law (University of Tehran) spring and summer - Issue 38, 227 to 250. [In Persian] Tsalakanidou, F. (2022). AI technologies and applications in media: State of Play, Foresight, and Research Directions, AI4Media - A European Excellence Centre for Media, Society and Democracy Vindu G; Kumar, H; Frenkel, S. (2018). In Sri Lanka, Facebook contends with shutdown after mob violence. New York Times, March 8. www.nytimes.com/2018/03/08/technology/sri-lanka-facebook-shutdown.html Waltzman, R. (2017). The weaponization of information: The need for cognitive security. In: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/ pubs/ testimonies/CT400/CT473/RAND_CT473.pdf Wylie, C. (2019). Mindf* ck: Inside Cambridge Analytica’s plot to break the world. Profile Books. Xenos, M.A; Vromen, A; Loader, B.D. (2014). The great equalizer? Patterns of social media use and youth political engagement in three advanced democracies. In The networked young citizen (pp. 17-38). Routledge. Zempi, I; Awan, I. (2020). Offline and Online Experiences of Anti-Muslim crime. For the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief [Preparation for the report to the 46th Session of Human Rights Council]. Zuboff, S. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 203-213). Routledge. Zuiderveen Borgesius, F; Möller, J; Kruikemeier, S; Ó Fathaigh, R; Irion, K; Dobber, T; De Vreese, C.H. (2018). Online political microtargeting: Promises and threats for democracy. Utrecht Law Review, 14(1), 82-96. 2, 66. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 97 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 49 |
||
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب