Fears AI factcheckers on X could increase promotion of conspiracy theories
Damian Collins accused Musk's firm of 'leaving it to bots to edit the news' after X announced on Tuesday that it would allow large language modelsto write community notes to clarify or correct contentious posts, before they are approved for publication by users. The notes have previously been written by humans.
X said using AI to write factchecking notes – which sit beneath some X posts – 'advances the state of the art in improving information quality on the internet'.
Keith Coleman, the vice president of product at X, said humans would review AI-generated notes and the note would appear only if people with a variety of viewpoints found it useful.
'We designed this pilot to be AI helping humans, with humans deciding,' he said. 'We believe this can deliver both high quality and high trust. Additionally we published a paper along with the launch of our pilot, co-authored with professors and researchers from MIT, University of Washington, Harvard and Stanford laying out why this combination of AI and humans is such a promising direction.'
But Collins said the system was already open to abuse and that AI agents working on community notes could allow 'the industrial manipulation of what people see and decide to trust' on the platform, which has about 600 million users.
It is the latest pushback against human factcheckers by US tech firms. Last month Google said user-created fact checks, including by professional factchecking organisations, would be deprioritised in its search results. It said such checks were 'no longer providing significant additional value for users'. In January, Meta announced it was scrapping human factcheckers in the US and would adopt its own community notes system on Instagram, Facebook and Threads.
X's research paper outlining its new factchecking system criticised professional factchecking as often slow and limited in scale and said it 'lacks trust by large sections of the public'.
AI-created community notes 'have the potential to be faster to produce, less effort to generate, and of high quality', it said. Human and AI-written notes would be submitted into the same pool and X users would vote for which were most useful and should appear on the platform.
AI would draft 'a neutral well-evidenced summary', the research paper said. Trust in community notes 'stems not from who drafts the notes, but from the people that evaluate them,' it said.
But Andy Dudfield, the head of AI at the UK factchecking organisation Full Fact, said: 'These plans risk increasing the already significant burden on human reviewers to check even more draft Notes, opening the door to a worrying and plausible situation in which Notes could be drafted, reviewed, and published entirely by AI without the careful consideration that human input provides.'
Samuel Stockwell, a research associate at the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security at the Alan Turing Institute, said: 'AI can help factcheckers process the huge volumes of claims flowing daily through social media, but much will depend on the quality of safeguards X puts in place against the risk that these AI 'note writers' could hallucinate and amplify misinformation in their outputs. AI chatbots often struggle with nuance and context, but are good at confidently providing answers that sound persuasive even when untrue. That could be a dangerous combination if not effectively addressed by the platform.'
Researchers have found that people perceived human-authored community notes as significantly more trustworthy than simple misinformation flags.
An analysis of several hundred misleading posts on X in the run up to last year's presidential election found that in three-quarters of cases, accurate community notes were not being displayed, indicating they were not being upvoted by users. These misleading posts, including claims that Democrats were importing illegal voters and the 2020 presidential election was stolen, amassed more than 2bn views, according to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Cash Isa bickering masks the real crisis for savers
The debate about whether Rachel Reeves should or should not limit the amount that people can save into a cash Isa has been heated. A good argument can be made that too much money has sat in low-yielding cash accounts that could be working harder in the stock market. But many people still feel, with some justification, that this is just another raid on prudent people trying to do the right thing. The problem with this debate is that most people expressing an opinion have a dog in the race. The Chancellor says she wants people to earn more on their savings – of course she does. But she also has her eye on £300bn of idle cash that would provide a useful boost to the growth promise on which she was elected if it were redirected towards UK-listed companies. That cash would also raise a useful amount of fresh revenue if, as is more likely, it simply moves from a tax-free cash account to a taxable one. You may not be surprised to learn that banks and building societies view that same money as a funding source for the mortgages and other loans they offer. They, therefore, make the case for precautionary saving, and they highlight the danger of putting money to work in the market that you might need soon to pay for a wedding, school fees or a house move. It is no surprise that their counterparts in the asset management and investment platform industry (full disclosure: that's me) prefer to focus on the historical outperformance of stock market investments over cash. We warn that holding too much cash for too long poses a different kind of threat to your financial security. We are all right, of course. There is a place for both cash and investments in our financial lives. The bigger problem is that most people don't understand financial risk. So they don't know how much importance to attach to the arguments on either side of this debate. Or what the right balance of cash and shares should be for them. Reeves highlights one risk of holding too much cash. Doing so usually means you are paying too high a price for certainty. You prefer a return of your money to a return on it. Which is reasonable for some of your savings, but not for all of them. Everyone should set aside a cash buffer before they start to think about investing in the stock market. But once they have done that, there is no reason to park any more in cash. How big that cushion should be is harder to say – it will vary according to your age, your ability to find new work if you lose your job and many other factors. Most people don't know how much cash they should sensibly hold. Consequently, some will hold too little and others far too much. But there is a long list of other risks over which they don't have a good grasp either. And, until they do, tweaking contribution limits may make less of a difference than the Chancellor hopes. You can lead a horse to water, as they say. There are a few things we, as an industry, have not done a great job of explaining. The first is the difference between volatility and risk. Volatility is the natural ups and downs of the market. This is only ever a risk if we sell our investments in response to a fall in their value and crystallise the loss. The stock market fell 20pc between February and April. But unless you sold at the bottom, you won't care now because it quickly recovered. Another point of the cash buffer is to prevent the next risk – being a forced seller. You should always have enough cash in the bank to be able to ignore short-term market volatility. Or to actively desire it as a chance to buy assets at a discount to their real value. Holding that cash is a first step towards avoiding another poorly understood risk: putting our eggs in too few baskets. One of the reasons I have been able to shrug off the market's change of heart on US assets this year is that America is only a part of my portfolio. Yes, there have been times in the past 10 years when I wished it was a bigger part than it was, but broad diversification has felt like a pretty good strategy in the first half of 2025. The biggest risk for most people when it comes to investing (or saving, come to that) is to put it off. I often tell a story about twin sisters, one who starts saving young and one who for too long finds other things to spend her money on. The prudent sister gets to a point in mid-life when she has so much capital that further saving is largely pointless. The other, meanwhile, can never catch up, no matter how long she keeps putting money aside. The point rightly made by the pro-investment lobby is that achieving the first sister's happy state is really only possible by tapping into the stock market's superior returns. The final risk that very few people properly understand is the ravage of inflation. Even those of us who think about how much we might need to fund our retirement fall into the trap of thinking about this in today's money. What we need to understand is that even at the Bank of England's 2pc target for inflation, the pot we manage to accumulate will buy us half as much in 36 years' time as it does today. At 3pc inflation, our purchasing power will halve in just 24 years. This is the strongest argument for shares over cash, which in the long run tends only to match, not beat, inflation. So while I support the Chancellor's desire to get people more focused on their investment returns than the return of their investments, this is just the start of it. Informing people how to save and invest sensibly is more important than bickering over whether they should do so via cash or the stock market.
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Net zero fines ‘may force Vauxhall to shut factories'
The owner of Vauxhall has warned the carmaker will be forced to close factories in Europe because of tough net zero penalties. Jean-Philippe Imparato, a senior executive at Stellantis, said European Union carbon emission standards would force the business to make 'tough decisions' without changes this year. He said the only way to meet the targets would be to double sales of electric vehicles (EVs), or to scale back production of traditional petrol and diesel cars – known as internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Speaking in Italy, Mr Imparato said: 'I have two solutions: either I push like hell [on electric] ... or I close down ICE. And therefore I close down factories.' The EU emission rules are designed to combat man-made climate change and require carmakers to cut the carbon emissions of the vehicles they sell by increasing the proportion that are electric. Those that do not hit the targets risk hefty fines. 'Unreachable' targets Carmakers have been lobbying for the targets to be delayed and relaxed, with the current regime set to be based on their average emissions from 2025 to 2027. On this basis, Stellantis – which owns brands including Vauxhall, Citroen, Peugeot and Fiat – fears it could be hit with potential fines of up to €2.5bn (£2.2bn) within two to three years. But Mr Imparato, who is Stellantis's chief of operations in Europe, dismissed the targets as 'unreachable'. Stellantis operates more than 50 factories globally, including around 20 in Europe. Mr Imparato did not say where the company's plant closures might fall but he did at one point mention the Italian van-making plant of Atessa in his remarks. Following the closure of its Luton plant earlier this year, the company's sole assembly plant in Britain is the Ellesmere Port facility near Liverpool. That site is undergoing a major upgrade to become an EV-only plant, with electric production set to begin late next year. A spokesman for Stellantis could not immediately comment on whether Ellesmere Port was at risk. However, the company has made significant investments in the site to produce electric vans. The Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) recently warned that Britain requires 'a whole of government approach to competitiveness' to retain and attract investment from the car industry. 'Electricity costs remain, as we speak, the highest in the world,' said Mike Hawes, the lobby group's chief executive. 'Internationally, we're worst for business rates, amongst the worst for the burden of government regulation. 'With international conditions causing problems beyond our control, it makes sense to ease the burdens we do control ... We need a compelling offer that redefines the UK's appeal as a place to invest.' Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, has vowed that the Government is 'right behind' carmakers after designating them for support in the recent industrial strategy. 'Our collective job is to bring more investment, more product lines and more jobs here,' he said.
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Pound falls despite Starmer's reassurances over Reeves's future
The value of the pound slipped further despite Sir Keir Starmer's assurances that Rachel Reeves will remain as Chancellor 'into the next election'. Sterling dropped nearly 1pc on Wednesday and government borrowing costs surged after the Chancellor shed tears in the Commons and the Prime Minister failed to back her when questioned at the depatch box. He later backed her but the pound and gilt yields – the return the government promises to buyers of its debt – failed to recover from one of the sharpest moves since the Liz Truss mini-Budget crisis. Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz, said: 'The concern in markets is that a new chancellor may not be as committed to the fiscal rules.' In early trading, the pound was last down around 0.1pc against the dollar at $1.364 and was 0.2pc lower versus the euro, which was worth 86.5p. Asked about Ms Reeves's emotional state on Wednesday, Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC: 'It was a personal matter for the Chancellor and I've been absolutely clear with you it has got nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with any discussion between me and Rachel, nothing to do with the matters of this week. 'She will be the Chancellor for a very long time to come. She is going to be the chancellor into the next election and for many years afterwards.'
