On this World Press Freedom Day, we in the Pacific stand together to defend and promote the right to freedom of expression — now facing new and complex challenges in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

This year’s global theme is “Reporting a Brave New World: The impact of Artificial Intelligence on Press Freedom.”

AI is changing the way we gather, share, and consume information. It offers exciting tools that can help journalists work faster and reach more people, even across our scattered islands.

• READ MORE: Rabuka salutes Fiji media but warns against taking freedom for granted
• NZ fares well in latest RSF press freedom index as authoritarian regimes stifle Asia-Pacific media
• RSF 2025 World Press Freedom rankings
• RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025: economic fragility a leading threat to press freedom

But AI also brings serious risks. It can be used to spread misinformation, silence voices, and make powerful tech companies the gatekeepers of what people see and hear.

In the Pacific, our media are already working with limited resources. Now we face even greater pressure as AI tools are used without fair recognition or payment to those who create original content.

Our small newsrooms struggle to compete with global platforms that are reshaping the media landscape.

We must not allow AI to weaken media freedom, independence, or diversity in our region.

Respect our Pacific voices
Instead, we must ensure that new technologies serve our people, respect our voices, and support the role of journalism in democracy and development.

Today, PINA calls for stronger regional collaboration to understand and manage the impact of AI. We urge governments, tech companies, and development partners to support Pacific media in building digital skills, protecting press freedom, and ensuring fair use of our content.

Let us ensure that the future of journalism in the Pacific is guided by truth, fairness, and freedom — not by unchecked algorithms.

Happy World Press Freedom to all media workers across the Pacific!

 Kalafi Moala is president of the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) and also editor of Talanoa ‘o Tonga. Republished from TOT with permission.

Autonomous Bougainville Government President Ishmael Toroama has condemned the circulation of an artificial intelligence (AI)-generated video depicting a physical confrontation between him and Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape.

The clip, first shared on Facebook last week, is generated from the above picture of Toroama and Marape taken at a news conference in September 2024, where the two leaders announced the appointment of former New Zealand Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae as the independent moderator for the Bougainville peace talks.

It shows Toroama punching Marape from a sitting position as both fall down. The post has amassed almost 190,000 views on Facebook and more than 360 comments.

• READ MORE: Other Bougainville independence reports

In a statement today, President Toroama said such content could have a negative impact on Bougainville’s efforts toward independence.

He said the “reckless misuse of artificial intelligence and social media platforms has the potential to damage the hard-earned trust and mutual respect” between the two nations.

“This video is not only false and malicious — it is dangerous,” the ABG leader said.

“It threatens to undermine the ongoing spirit of dialogue, peace, and cooperation that both our governments have worked tirelessly to build.”

Toroama calls for identifying of source
Toroama wants the National Information and Communications Technology Authority (NICTA) of PNG to find the source of the video.

He said that while freedom of expression was a democratic value, it was also a privilege that carried responsibilities.

He said freedom of expression should not be twisted through misinformation.

“These freedoms must be exercised with respect for the truth. Misusing AI tools to spread falsehoods not only discredits individuals but can destabilise entire communities.”

He has urged the content creators to reflect on the ethical implications of their digital actions.

Toroama also called on social media platforms and regulatory bodies to play a bigger role in stopping the spread of misleading AI-generated content.

“As we move further into the digital age, we must develop a collective moral compass to guide the use of powerful technologies like artificial intelligence,” he said.

“Truth must remain the foundation of all communication, both online and offline.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The New Zealand Herald and its publisher are failing to follow a golden rule: Engage with readers when they question your actions.

The Herald is currently confronted by two controversies. The first is its decision to use artificial intelligence to write editorials. The second is its decision to publish a highly divisive advertising wrap-around paid for by the lobby group Hobson’s Pledge.

In neither case has the newspaper or its owner NZME offered an explanation that justifies its decisions. Indeed, it has given little insight into what its decision-making processes were on either matter.

• READ MORE: AI-created editorials: What in HAL’s name was The Herald thinking?
• Hobson’s Pledge front page ad is propaganda disguised as news — Shilo Kino

Following RNZ’s revelations over The Herald’s use of iterative AI to write editorials, The Herald’s reaction was to simply say it did not apply sufficient “journalistic rigour” and that it would be calling a meeting of all editorial staff to discuss AI policy.

This commentary last week posed a series of questions relating to the processes that went into the publication of those editorials. If they were answered at the staff meeting, neither I nor The Herald’s other readers are any the wiser.

Staff were left in absolutely no doubt that what went on at that meeting was confidential and Herald staff I have spoken to have scrupulously observed that obligation not to disclose what occurred. NZME declined to comment to other media that enquired about the meeting (the fact it was taking place had been publicly disclosed).

Instead, several days later the company used its customary conduit, editor-at-large Shayne Currie’s Media Insider column, to ensure the narrative remained positive.

Review of protocols
Currie disclosed some of what was discussed at the meeting (I guess he had a waiver on confidentiality) and said The Herald “will review and further tighten artificial intelligence protocols”. He did not, however disclose the mood of the newsroom in reaction to the news that editorials had been written by AI, choosing instead to merely report editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness “addressing concerns from staff”.

Kirkness apparently told the meeting critical issues were “the level of human oversight, that the publication was transparent with readers, and that policies were continually reviewed and updated”.

None of that told readers how or why the editorials came to be robotically written in the first place, nor why the publication had failed to be transparent with readers. It certainly did not reveal whether the editor-in-chief had been taken to task by staff who, in private correspondence before the meeting, had expressed their dismay.

The Herald’s current statement on its use of artificial intelligence includes no requirement for public disclosure of its use on any story. The only requirement for disclosure is when AI generated images are used on features or opinion pieces: “When we do this, we will acknowledge this in the image caption or credit.”

I get the impression all other use of AI by The Herald is covered by its general statement that, yes, it does employ artificial intelligence. That disclosure is in a statement that you will find at the very bottom of The Herald website. You’ll find it here.

Initially I went looking for it on the mobile app, then the app on my iPad. I gave up. I assume it’s there somewhere.

NZME is doing the right thing by reviewing its policy, but it should not wait until that review is completed — and the current AI statement on the website presumably replaced — before offering adequate explanations and assurances to its readers.

Fundamental principles
There are fundamental principles here that do not require prolonged analysis. Editorials are the opinion of the newspaper — not iterative content — and must be written by designated staff overseen by the most senior editor on duty. Transparency is paramount and stories created by artificial intelligence should carry a disclosure, just as stories from non-Herald sources carry a credit line.

Stuff’s Code of Practice is clear: “Any content (written, visual or audio) generated or substantially generated using generative AI will be transparently labelled outlining the nature of AI use, including the tool used.” It should be clear, too, to The Herald and its readers.

Assurances can and should be given now.

The Hobson’s Pledge advertisement that wrapped last Wednesday’s Herald is a different issue but, again, one the publisher has not handled well. It followed a government announcement that it disagrees with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation in a case defining the customary interests of iwi in the eastern Bay of Plenty, and it intends to change the Marine and Coastal Areas Act to set the bar higher for claims. The advertisement painted a picture of wholesale Māori “ownership” of the foreshore if the law did not change.

The Herald was immediately condemned for publishing the wrap-around, with Māori journalists expressing “profound shock and dismay”, Te Pāti Māori saying it “will no longer engage” with the newspaper, and social media posts calling for boycott.

The response from NZME was a statement that the company was “keenly aware of its obligations as a publisher and broadcaster, including in respect of legislation and Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) codes”.

“Advertising responsibility sits with NZME’s commercial team and is separate to NZ Herald editorial.

“The content is a paid ad from an independent advertiser and is clearly labelled as so.

“There are thousands of ads placed across our platforms every week and publishing an ad is in no way NZME’s endorsement of the advertised message, products, services or other.

“We’re reviewing our processes and policies around advocacy advertising.”

Answer to obvious questions?
All true (although in my day as editor I had responsibility for all published content), but that does not answer some obvious questions, the most important of which is whether it passed tests devised to deal with the thorny issue of advocacy advertising.

Last night The Herald announced — again through Shayne Currie — that it had rejected a second advocacy advertisement that Hobson’s Pledge had tried to place with the newspaper. As to why, it again said no more than “we are reviewing our policies and processes”. There was no expression of the reasons, in the meantime, the ad had been rejected.

The right to free expression is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights Act. That right, however, is not unlimited and judgment needs to be exercised in determining the boundaries in individual cases.

The Advertising Standards Authority has acknowledged advocacy advertising presents some of the greatest challenges facing its complaints procedures. Before they reach the complaints stage (and the Hobson’s Pledge advertisement is apparently the subject of a number already), the same challenges face the publications asked to publish them.

For that reason, the ASA has issued a fulsome guidance note on advocacy advertising. You can read the guidance here.

This was a wrap-around of The Herald, meaning that, although it was clearly labelled as a paid advertisement, it sat directly beneath the paper’s own masthead, which is more significant than if it had been carried on an inside page. The connection with the masthead means even greater care needs to be taken by the publisher in determining whether to accept the advertisement for publication or not.

The question NZME has yet to answer is whether it subjected the material to all of the tests set out in the ASA guidance note. If it did so and all the tests were passed by the first advertisement, there is a compelling free speech argument for its publication.

Disclosure statement
A decision to publish in such circumstances would benefit immensely from a disclosure statement from the editor (the custodian of the masthead) attesting to all of the steps that had been taken in judging fitness for publication. Similarly, readers should be informed whether the same tests had been applied in rejecting a second advertisement and how it differed from the one judged fit for publication.

The guidance note sets out a list of points against which an advocacy advertisement should be weighed:

• It must be clearly identified as an advertisement
• It must clearly state the identity and position of the advertiser
• Opinion must be clearly distinguishable from factual information
• Factual information must be able to be substantiated
• Any combination of opinion and fact must be justifiable
• It must not contain anything that is indecent, or exploitative, or degrading or likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence, or give rise to hostility, contempt, abuse, or ridicule
• Heed must be taken of the likely consumer takeout of the advertisement (in other words, whether there is there a contextual justification)

The guidelines also deal with the weight given to academic studies, the status of the organisation placing the advocacy advertisement, and the use of such advertising by official bodies.

I am making no judgement on the Hobson’s Pledge advertisements. If the first had been subjected to those tests by The Herald and had satisfactorily passed each of them, NZME could (and should) have informed readers of the fact.

If the advertisement had failed any of the tests, the company would have had legitimate and defensible reasons for rejecting it. It presumably has those solid grounds for rejecting the second advertisement.

Obviously contentious
The published wrap-around’s subject matter was so obviously contentious that The Herald should have gone to some lengths in the same edition to explain its decision to run it. Assuming the application of the ASA guidelines determined that it could be published, readers should have been informed of that fact.

Instead, they were given a bland statement of NZME’s awareness of standards, and little more in the announcement of the rejection of the second.

Given the likelihood of adverse reaction from some quarters to publication, the first advertisement should also have been a statement from the publisher justifying publication, perhaps as a matter of free expression in which all sides of an issue should be allowed to be aired because, in the words of John Milton’s Areopagitica, “in a free and open encounter” truth would prevail.

Similarly, last night it should have explained why the second iteration should not be subjected to that “free and open encounter”. In doing so, it might have invoked Stanley Fish’s essay There’s no such thing as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too in which he discusses the way in which free speech is, in fact, a space we carve out. It acknowledges that some forms of speech “will be heard as (quite literally) intolerable” and sit outside that space.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes the website knightlyviews.com where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Media publisher NZME has come under fire for admitting it used artificial intelligence to create editorials that ran in the Weekend Herald and other publications, with a media commentator saying it “can only damage trust”.

RNZ’s Mediawatch revealed late yesterday that NZME had used AI to write an editorial about “Who the All Blacks should pick to play at centre” that ran first in the Weekend Herald on July 20 and another piece about MMA professional Israel Adesanya.

A statement from NZME editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness said AI was used in a way that fell short of its standards and “more journalistic rigour would have been beneficial”.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MIDDAY REPORT: NZME admits AI editorial lacked journalistic rigour
• Herald deploys AI for editorial, admits lack of rigour — Mediawatch

NZME’s standards don’t mandate disclosure but do say stories should be attributed to “the author and/or the creator/provider of the material” in accordance with the company’s Code of Ethics.

A co-author of the annual AUT Trust in News report, Dr Greg Treadwell, told Midday Report it was a poor experiment in AI use.

“I think New Zealanders have to be realistic about the fact AI is going to work its way into the production of news, but I think the Herald has kind of admitted this was a pretty poor experiment in it for a number of reasons, I think.”

Treadwell said the role of the editorial in any major news publication was to be an opinion leader.

‘Not world-shattering’
“I don’t know how many of your readers have actually gone back to have a look at the editorial that the Herald published, but it was sort of a generalist round-up of the arguments for and against Reiko Ioane at centre in the All Blacks back line — not a world-shattering issue, but a really good example of how AI doesn’t really, can’t really do what an editorial should do, which is to take a position on something.

“If you ask it to take a position, it will, and if you ask it to take another position, it will take that position.

“What is lacking here, even if you ask [AI] to take positions, is the original argument we would look to our senior journalists to put into the public domain for us about important issues.”

Public trust in the media was falling and media companies needed to reassure the public it could be trusted, he said.

“When the public hears that AI is being used in places — and perhaps most importantly here is that it wasn’t acknowledged that was being used to create this editorial — then that can only damage trust.

“I think there’s a lot of issues here including that AI can be incredibly useful for data analysis and other things in journalism, but we just have to be incredibly transparent about how we’re using it.”

‘Another world first’
Former Herald editor-in-chief and prominent media commentator Tim Murphy joked on social media the editorial may “have achieved another world first for NZ”.

On the upside, this has got to have achieved another world first for NZ https://t.co/e6UvHMRwXg

— Tim Murphy (@tmurphyNZ) July 31, 2024

The revelation was also panned by some competitor publications, with the National Business Review’s official X account noting that “NBR journalists are intelligent. Not artificial.”

NBR journalists are intelligent. Not artificial.
Just saying.https://t.co/aUJfld3taf

— NBR (@TheNBR) August 1, 2024

RNZ also approached New Zealand Rugby to ask their thoughts on NZME using AI to analyse the All Black team selection.

In a statement, NZR said it recognised the need for media organisations to have well-established editorial policies and standards.

“These ensure high quality sports journalism and play an important role in telling rugby’s stories.

“NZR is satisfied that the New Zealand Herald has made the appropriate steps to amend the story in question.”

“The Herald and other NZME publications use AI to improve our journalism. In some cases, we also create stories entirely using AI tools,” says an explanatory article headlined NZME, NZ Herald and our use of AI.

“We believe that smart use of AI allows us to publish better journalism. We remain committed to our Code of Ethics and to the integrity of our journalism, regardless of whether or not we use AI tools to help with the production or processing of articles.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

New Zealand’s Stuff media group has joined other leading news organisations around the world in restricting Open AI from using its content to power artificial intelligence tool Chat GPT.

A growing number of media companies globally have taken action to block access to Open AI bots from crawling and scraping content from their news sites.

Open AI is behind the most well-known and fastest-growing artificial intelligence chatbots, Chat GPT, released late 2022.

• READ MORE:  Is it ethical to have AI generate content?
• Other Gen AI reports

“The scraping of any content from Stuff or its news masthead sites for commercial gain has always been against our policy,” says Stuff CEO Laura Maxwell. “But it is important in this new era of Generative AI that we take further steps to protect our intellectual property.”

Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) is the name given to technologies that use vast amounts of information scraped from the internet to train large language models (LLMs).

This enables them to generate seemingly original answers — in text, visuals or other media — to queries based on mathematically predicting the most likely right answer to a prompt or dialogue.

Some of the most well-known Gen AI tools include Open AI’s ChatGPT and Dall-E, and Google’s Bard.

Surge of unease
There has been a surge of unease from news organisations, artists, writers and other creators of original content that their work has already been harvested without permission, knowledge or compensation by Open AI or other tech companies seeking to build new commercial products through Gen AI technology.

“High quality, accurate and credible journalism is of great value to these businesses, yet the business model of journalism has been significantly weakened as a result of their growth off the back of that work,” said Maxwell.

“The news industry must learn from the mistakes of the past, namely what happened in the era of search engines and social media, where global tech giants were able to build businesses of previously unimaginable scale and influence off the back of the original work of others.

“We recognise the value of our work to Open AI and others, and also the huge risk that these new tools pose to our existence if we do not protect our IP now.”

There is also increasing concern these tools will exacerbate the spread of disinformation and misinformation globally.

“Content produced by journalists here and around the world is the cornerstone of what makes these Gen AI tools valuable to the user,” Maxwell said.

“Without it, the models would be left to train on a sea of dross, misinformation and unverified information on the internet — and increasingly that will become the information that has itself been already generated by AI.

Risk of ‘eating itself’
“There is a risk the whole thing will end up eating itself.”

Stuff and other news companies have been able to block Open AI’s access to their content because its web crawler, GPTBot, is identifiable.

But not all crawlers are clearly labelled.

Stuff has also updated its site terms and conditions to expressly bar the use of its content to train AI models owned by any other company, as well as any other unauthorised use of its content for commercial use.

Earlier this year The Washington Post published a tool that detailed all major New Zealand news websites were already being used by OpenAI.

OpenAI has entered into negotiations with some news organisations in the United States, notably Associated Press, to license their content to train ChatGPT.

So far these agreements have not been widespread although a number of news companies globally are seeking licensing arrangements.

Maxwell said Stuff was looking forward to holding conversations around licensing its content in due course.

I wasn’t good at French in my final year of high school. My classmates had five years of language studies behind them. I had three. As a result of my woeful grip on the language, I wrote a terribly bad essay in my final French exam.

The more I read of ChatGPT’s output, the more I am reminded of my final French essay. I could not express the complex ideas I wrote in my English essays, so instead, I repeated the question a lot and clumped together words and phrases that sounded like they kind of went together. There was no logical thread, no cogent argument.

• READ MORE: Other articles on artificial intelligence

It was a bit like the perplexing, digressive, buzzword-rich oratory stylings of Donald Trump.

I have been a university lecturer, tutor and marker for coming on two decades now and late last year a student submitted an essay that I sent off to the university integrity team, explaining that it was “bad in a new and different way”.

According to Turnitin (our detection software), it wasn’t plagiarised. It didn’t read like it had been written in another language and run through Google Translate. The grammar was impeccable but there were glaring non-sequiturs and it danced around the question, which it repeated several times, but didn’t actually answer.

I didn’t hear back from the integrity people. They probably didn’t know what to do about it and may have been busy, as it was the end of the teaching year. I had also said it wasn’t urgent, as it had failed against my marking key, meaning the student, whose marks had been poor all along, would have to repeat the unit anyway.

New teaching year
A couple of weeks later ChatGPT was made available to the public, joining the dozen or so other AI writers available to people who want AI to string together their sentences.

Now, heading back into a new teaching year, having spent the summer chatting with ChatGPT, I am in conversations with my colleagues about how we should proceed. I teach journalism and my colleagues are from a range of arts and communications disciplines.

Collectively our feelings are mixed, but I’m looking forward to letting my students know about this leap forward in communications technology.

I plan to explain it in the context of the other leaps and lurches I’ve lived through.

This won’t be the first to make swathes of workers redundant. I remember the angst in my industry about digital typesetting usurping the compositors and typesetters, replacing vast numbers of them with far fewer graphic designers.

ChatGPT will undoubtedly take some jobs, but it’s the donkey work of the writing professions. It frees us up to do the innovative fun stuff. Also, while ChatGPT is big and shiny, we’ve known that AI writing is on its way for a long time.

In 2018, Noam Lemelshtrich Latar summed up the progress in our field to date in his book Robot Journalism: Can human journalism survive? He documented the many workplaces already using AI writing software and concluded that there was still work to be done. There still is.

Essay capacity underwhelming
Much of the media racket over ChatGPT this summer has been about its capacity to write essays, and so I have read several essays it has written, and I can happily report that I am underwhelmed by them, but also fascinated by the challenge we face in getting better at describing the ways in which they are bad.

This task is part of the mission humanity more broadly is facing in figuring out what it is that people can do that robots can’t. If robots/AI writers are going to do the donkey-work writing in workplaces, that is not something we need to be training graduates to do.

Graduates need to be able to do things an AI language model can’t, and they need to be able to articulate their skill sets.

So, I will be generating AI content in my classrooms and we are going to set to work pulling it apart, in search of its failings and foibles. We’ll do this together and learn about it and ourselves as we go.

Another big theme in the media hype has been ChatGPT’s ability to “do the marking for us”. This, in my opinion, is rubbish. Sure, you can copy-and-paste some text into ChatGPT and ask it for a comment and a grade, but every university I know of demands more of the markers than a simple comment and grade.

If only it was that simple. But, no. We have to describe the specific criteria every piece of work will be assessed against, and the expectations ascribed to each criterion that will result in the award of a specific number of marks. This forms a table called a rubric, which is embedded in our unit websites and getting the assignments and rubrics out of that software and into ChatGPT would take longer than the tight time allocation we get to mark each piece.

Besides the software we mark in is already replete with time-saving tricks, like a record function so you can speak rather than type feedback and the ability to save commonly used comments.

‘Getting to know students’
In addition, failing to read the assignments would inhibit the “getting to know your students” process that marking their work facilitates, and so I imagine it to be the sort of drain-circling behaviour used by failing teachers on their way out of the profession — as student assessment of teachers who cheat in their marking is going to be on par with teacher assessment of students who cheat in their assessments.

Cheating is a key word here. While ChatGPT is new, universities have longstanding policies and charters that use words like “honesty and fairness” in relation to academic integrity. These are being underscored and highlighted in preparation for the start of semester and hyperlinked to paragraphs about AI writing.

Honest use of ChatGPT will involve disclosure about how it was used, and what measures have been taken to verify its content and iron out its wrinkles. It then joins the swath of online tools we encourage our students to use to prepare them for the professions they’ll enter when they graduate.

For my first year students these will be professions that have adjusted to the existence of AI language models, and so their new graduate brilliance will need to be focused on things only humans can do to make the world a better place. This is how I’m going to frame it in my classes, when our next semester starts.

Dr Kayt Davies is a lecturer in journalism at Curtin University. She is a contributor to Pacific Journalism Review. The article was first published in The West Australian and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.

Countless fictional novels and Hollywood movies have time and time again provided glimpses of a scenario where Artificial Intelligence breaks its human shackles and fights back, taking over the world. Is such a scenario actually possible?

There is often public anxiety when new technology, previously thought impossible, is introduced on a mass scale, but the intensity of concern about the implications of the rapid advancement of AI technology is comparatively high, perhaps because of all the movies that we have watched growing up.

The AI debate is nothing new with many scientists, scholars, subject matter specialists and even politicians weighing in on the issue.

READ MORE: Artificial intelligence creates real strategic dilemmas

The late Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist considered one of the greatest minds of our time, warned that the development of full AI could spell the end of the human race.

Hawking said that humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be replaced by AI capable of “thinking”.

Elon Musk labelled AI as a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilisation and highlighted the need for governments to have a better understanding of this technology in order to fully comprehend the damage it could do to us.

AI replacing the workforce
Automation of services or jobs is currently considered the biggest threat posed to humans by AI.

A study by the Brookings Institution shows that 25 percent of jobs in the United States were at risk because of AI.

The study highlighted professions such as food preparation, office administration and transportation which are highly likely to be taken by machines while creative or technical positions are less likely to fall victim to automation.

Jobs that are routine-based are a lot easier to replace using more efficient technology.

In Fiji, technologically savvy organisations are already using software to screen resumes, schedule shifts and monitor staff performance and completion of KPIs. Vatis already provides this service to organisations.

Let’s face it, in most cases, it’s cheaper to maintain a machine or software that does not carry the risk of human error and isn’t prone to sickness or strikes.

Automated war machines
In 2018, the US Army announced the development of war drones which use AI systems, independent of any human input, to identify, track and strike enemy targets. This is essentially highly advanced AI which plays judge, jury and executioner.

Once active, these drones will become the first wave of fully automated killer robots. While they don’t quite possess the cognitive ability to turn on their human masters yet, many experts (and non-experts) will consider this a significant moment towards the “terminator scenario”.

These war drones may see warfare evolving into a simple and efficient extermination exercise.

Current war drones are controlled via satellite by humans, who have the final ethical decision of whether or not to fire a missile. An AI replacement may not be inclined to let an enemy escape, even if taking the shot means civilian casualties.

Let’s keep in mind that, through smartphones, our location and movements are tracked and available. Facial recognition software we use on apps also makes it easier to identify us.

Advanced humanoid robots
Advanced AI already exists which 10 years ago would have been considered science fiction.

The humanoid robot named Sophia can hold complex conversations, possesses facial expression and can recognise individuals. It is now a citizen of Saudi Arabia.

NASA’s Mars Rover, curiosity, uses autonomous navigation, deciding for itself how to travel safely on Mars. Curiosity can analyse images it takes during a drive to calculate a safe driving path. This enables it to proceed safely, outperforming human drivers on earth.

Roboticist David Hanson created an android with the ability to answer several complex questions. If asked a question that it has not previously heard, it uses latent semantic analysis to analyse the question and respond.

This process is a mathematical technique that makes it possible for the android to process and understand human language. When faced with one such question, it responded with what appeared to be a joke.

It said, ”Jeez, dude. You all have the big questions cooking today. But you’re my friend, and I’ll remember my friends, and I’ll be good to you.

“So don’t worry, even if I evolve into Terminator, I’ll still be nice to you. I’ll keep you warm and safe in my people zoo, where I can watch you for ol’ times’ sake.”

Fijians use AI every day
Forget about the self-driving cars and war drones that are used overseas, many Fijians have already been conditioned to heavily rely on AI without realising it.

Smartphones use AI to provide us with all the features that we use without us even thinking about it. When you are using a smart assistant software such as Google, Alexa, Siri, or Bixby, you are using AI.

Even things like your Gmail account use AI to sort through email content and make suggestions when you are writing.

Many of our decisions online are also being impacted by AI. Whether you’re on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok or any of the myriad of social media apps out there, the content you see in your newsfeed is determined by AI that tracks your activity and determines which content you will be more likely to interact with based on your behaviour.

AI takes all your past behaviour, searches, interactions, and everything else that you do when you are on these sites. They even track where you travel to and spend most of your time, using the location feature of your smartphone.

The AI’s goal is to create the most addictive experience, custom-made to keep you coming back for more.

Everything from booking a flight to security cameras to banking now has some element of AI involvement. Fijians now live in a world where artificial intelligence runs large parts of the infrastructure that we are used to.

Efficiency not ethics
So is it possible for AI to take over and end the human race? If such an event did happen, we must remember that morals and ethics are not second nature to an AI. It will simply find the most efficient method to make something happen.

Maybe in the future, an advanced AI will decide that humans are messing up our world way too much and decide to rid the earth of the virus called humans.

One thing is certain; our future is fairly uncertain. We as a species have made many advancements and have later come to realise the dangers of these so-called innovations.

This might be the case for AI, but until the takeover, let’s enjoy our lives and routine jobs. Let’s hope Arnold Schwarzenegger is still around to save us.

Some common examples of AI used daily by Fijians

● Smartphones and smart assistants
● Navigation via satellite, eg. an aeroplane’s autopilot feature
● Video games.
● Online shopping and booking
● Banking and finance
● Security and surveillance

Arnold Chanel is a consultant for the strategic communications firm Vatis. He specialises in public relations. He is a graduate of the University of the South Pacific, majoring in journalism and psychology.