Opinion: Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict resolution must take social media more seriously

Opinion: Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict resolution must take social media more seriously

by | Mar 10, 2023 | Armenia, Azerbaijan, Commonspace, Nagorno Karabakh, Social Media

Commonspace, a publications of LINKS Europe, yesterday published my opinion piece on the need for conflict resolution practitioners in the South Caucasus to fully embrace social media as part of their initiatives and activities. This is especially necessary for the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Karabakh where its use is lacking to say the least. 

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the breakaway region of Nagorno Karabakh has continued for over three decades and peace continues to remain elusive, writes Onnik James Krikorian in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. Populist rhetoric and combative media reports reinforce entrenched positions in both societies, but the situation has become markedly worse with the emergence of a new battleground – social media. 

 

[…]

 

Another new addition to an online arsenal were memes.

 

“According to social media specialists, political memetic content can make one more susceptible to hardliner arguments,” wrote Renée Rippberger just two days before the 2020 war broke out. “Political or nationalistic memes often use humour to make their message more palatable because however distasteful, ‘it’s comfortable, it speaks to peoples’ values and also their cultural upbringing.’” 

 

“In an entrenched conflict such as the one between Armenia and Azerbaijan, memes help to normalise uncompromising positions.”

 

This shouldn’t come as a surprise and some governments are already well aware of how the Tik-Tok and Instagram generation consume information. US Marine Corps Major Michael B. Prosser, for example, even suggested setting up a Meme Warfare Centre (MWC) in the US Army and noted the importance of involving cognitive scientists, cultural anthropologists, behavioural scientists, and game theory experts. 

 

“Memes influence ideas, ideas influence and form beliefs. Beliefs generate and influence political positions combined with feelings and emotions, eventually producing actions, which inform and influence behaviour,” Prosser wrote in his Masters thesis.

 

[…]

 

Of course, the weaponisation of social media is nothing new. Both Brexit in the U.K. and the 2016 presidential election campaign in the U.S. already highlighted how rather than bring people together, social media is arguably more effective in driving them apart. And just as social media has proven an effective tool for violent extremist groups to radicalise susceptible individuals, so too has it been able to do the same in domestic politics and international relations.

 

[…]

 

Despite some calls for civil society organisations working on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict to incorporate robust social media strategies in their work over the past 15 years, few if any have done so. Moreover, there is a distinct lack of content produced to reach specific demographic and linguistic groups in a manner accessible to them. Instead, for many in the conflict resolution community, it seems that simply opening a Facebook group or holding a Zoom meeting is considered enough. 

 

Suffice to say, it is not. Audiences are tiny and what content is produced is rarely seen. Even fewer amplify it further. 

 

[…]

 

It is now time for individuals, grassroots movements, and civil society organisations engaged in this sphere to harness that power effectively. And if peace negotiations ever progress that far, the same will also be true for the Armenian and Azerbaijani governments as well.  

The full opinion piece can be read here while my previous work since 2010 on the use of social media in conflict zones and in the sphere of countering and preventing violent extremism are available here.

 

 

CONFLICT VOICES e-BOOKS

 

Conflict Voices – December 2010

Short essays on the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict
Download in English | Russian

 

Conflict Voices – May 2011

Short essays on the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict
Download in English | Russian

Karabakh Armenian and Azerbaijan Representatives meet at Russian Peacekeeping Force HQ

Karabakh Armenian and Azerbaijan Representatives meet at Russian Peacekeeping Force HQ

by | Mar 1, 2023 | Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh, Russia

The meeting of the Azerbaijani and Karabakh Armenian representatives at the Russian peacekeeping base today as published by various media

Representatives of Azerbaijan and the defacto authorities representing local ethnic Armenians today met  under the auspices of the Russian peacekeeping force at its headquarters in Khojali.  Such meetings are not new but there are a few arguably important differences.

The first and most signifant one is that an Azerbaijani MP, Ramin Mammadov, was not only present but has now been identified as the person responsible to represent Azerbaijan in talks with the Karabakh Armenians.

Seems he was also born in Karabakh, incidentally. A second is that for the first time ever from meetings that have been held at the Russian peacekeeping base is that there was a photograph.

Thus, Armenian media could identify defacto Karabakh National Security Secretary Samvel Shahramanyan as also present.

Another significance is that this follows the dismissal of Russian-Armenian businessman Ruben Vardanyan as defacto Karabakh State Minister. In Munich, Azerbaijani President had again signalled that Baku would engage in such talks but not with Vardanyan. 

Though we do not as yet know if Shahramyan has been also been named as the representative in such talks, it is worth noting that one of his predecessors, Vitali Balasanyan, had also been involved in such meetings, though not as publicly, until his dismissal in early January.

Talk of appointing specific representatives from both sides were also apparently discussed at the 27 September meeting between Armenian National Secretary Secretary Armen Grigoryan and Azerbaijan Presidential Advisor Hikmet Hajiyev in Washington D.C. last year.

The Government of Azerbaijan will nominate a representative to work with a similar representative designated by the Armenian ethnic community in Nagorno-Karabakh to conduct discussions on the rights and securities for the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh. Representatives will provide to the international community on their discussions. The parties will continue to review the role of an international observer, without prejudice to Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, to provide confidence regarding protections for minority groups in Nagorno-Karabakh.

That Baku and Stepanakert must engage in direct communication was also something I have long since called for to happen for over two years now and also raised at a meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijan civil society actors in Tbilisi in January 2021. 

Anyway, this much for now as I plan to write either a comprehensive article instead, but as an update, just to say that representatives of Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources, State Service for Real Estate Affairs under the Ministry of Economy, the [natural resources] monitoring group, and AzerGold were also present.

These bodies being present highlight how the continuing stand-off on the Lachin Corridor were clearly discussed. Another related issue is the inevitable distinction between two negotiation tracks now. That is, Armenia-Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan-Karabakh, something else immediately after the November 2020 ceasefire statement that I forecast would happen.

There’s still a difficult path to tread, but the more open nature of the meeting is something to be welcomed. The only exception to less exposed meetings before has been when Karabakh Armenian and Azerbaijani water specialists met at the Sarsang Reservoir. However, that was not of such an official nature as today even if video and photos were also released.

As for the fact it was held through Russian mediation and facilitation, it so far does not appear to have shake the European Union at least. “Encouraging news from Khojaly today regarding contacts between Baku representatives and Karabakh Armenians,” EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus, Toivo Klaar, has already tweeted about today’s meeting. 

 

March 2, 2023 Update: My article for the Caspian Post is now available here.

 

 

CONFLICT VOICES e-BOOKS

 

Conflict Voices – December 2010

Short essays on the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict
Download in English | Russian

 

Conflict Voices – May 2011

Short essays on the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict
Download in English | Russian

Two-Year European Union Monitoring Mission Deployed in Armenia

Two-Year European Union Monitoring Mission Deployed in Armenia

by | Feb 28, 2023 | Armenia, Azerbaijan, Balcani Caucaso, European Union

Logo of the new Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) unarmed civilian European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA) that will be headquartered in Yeghegnadzor, Vayots Dzor region.

A week after the deployment of the European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA), a dedicated 100-person strong observation of the country’s border with Azerbaijan, there’s still much that remains unknown about its activities. However, in two pieces published this week by the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) and Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso, I’ve tried to summarise what we do know. 

In the first, published yesterday, there’s initial reaction from analysts in Yerevan and Baku such as Benyamin Poghosyan, Farid Shafiyev, and Mahammad Mammadov, as well as those involved in the process of contribution personnel to the mission such as Tobias Pietz. 

The EU has deployed an expanded monitoring mission to Armenia’s volatile border with Azerbaijan in a move that confirms Brussels’ increased commitment in a region that Moscow historically considered its sphere of influence.

 

In response, the Russian foreign ministry stated that the EU mission would only further stoke “geopolitical confrontation”.

 

The EU Mission in Armenia (EUMA) officially started on February 20 and comprises “exclusively civilian staff [that] will number approximately 100 in total, including around 50 unarmed observers,” according to a press release.

 :

[…]

 :

EUMCAP received a cold reception from Baku, which nevertheless agreed to cooperate with it. In Armenia the mission was criticised by the political opposition for not publicly releasing any reports.

 

Analysts, however, evaluated it positively.

 

“[Its] deployment was a significant step in emphasising EU interest and involvement in the South Caucasus and in Armenia,” Benyamin Poghosyan, director of the Centre for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan, told IWPR.

 :

[…]

 

Poghosyan posited that the underlying intention was to contribute to peace talks.

 

“The primary objective is to create a more conducive environment for the resumption and continuation of Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations and the eventual signing of a peace agreement within a reasonable timescale – probably by the end of 2023,” he said.

 

Nonetheless, he sounded a note of caution.

 

“Armenia should not think that EUMA is sent by the EU to freeze the conflict and to provide it with time to strengthen its military while acting as a buffer against a potential Azerbaijani attack,” Poghosyan continued, maintaining that Yerevan should refrain from public criticism of Russia’s peacekeeping force in Karabakh and its general presence in the region.  

 

[…]

 

[…] ZIF’s Pietz maintained that the mission’s potential far outweighed its risks.

 

“Yes, Azerbaijan and Russia have not signaled their support for EUMA but especially Baku has no interest to jeopardise its ties, including economically, with the EU by putting the mission and its personnel in actual danger,” he explained. “I rather fear that encounters between local Russian border or military units with EUMA patrols might pose some risks.

 

“That is why it will be key for EUMA to set up respective emergency communication channels with local commanders and communities.”

The full article is here.

Meanwhile, what did become obvious from the outset, however, is that the European Union needs to focus on managing expectations. As some analysts, including myself, have noted, EUMA is unable to prevent or deter any cross-border incidents or military actions. Its primary task will be to monitor and report back to Brussels. Unfortunately, however, there were initially incorrect reports in the local media that some of the mission could be armed.

It won’t be, and as was clearly stated from the very start. Nonetheless, it is widely believed that EUMA will be able to help reduce tensions on the border even if it will also require an underlying peace process to accompany it in order to be truly effective. Even so, the mission will still prove a sensitive one as I outlined for Osservatorio today. 

[…] despite the precedent of the earlier civilian monitoring capacity, some Armenian media inaccurately reported the news, even going as far to imply that while 50 of the 100 staff will be “unarmed monitors”, the remaining 50 might carry weapons. Other reports incorrectly stated that there were 100 monitors and not 50, while yet another even referred to EUMA as “European Union ground forces”.

 

None of those claims was correct, however, and all were potentially damaging for the mission before it had even operated for a full day. In fairness, news reports that seconded gendarmes and police officers from France and Germany would be among others in EUMA could be the reason for the confusion, coincidentally highlighting how the EU will need to manage expectations for the mission.

 

“As monitors they are no longer police, even though in the case of EUMM Georgia some of the seconded police decided to wear their uniforms. But they are always unarmed”, clarifies Tobias Pietz, Deputy Head of Analysis at the Center for International Peace Operations (ZIF), a German governmental agency that will also contribute staff to EUMA.

 

[…]

 

Even so, concerns have been raised in Baku.

 

“Unlike the previous temporary version of the mission, there is no clear peace agenda and no coordination with Azerbaijan”, says Topchubashov analyst Mahammad Mammadov. “It may damage the EU’s image as an honest broker in the region and Baku is highly concerned about losing the EU mediation track as it has been the favoured choice for a number of reasons”.

 

[…]

 

“The observers must pay heed to the other important party in the region — Russia, which has military and border guards along Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan”, wroteInternational Crisis Group Senior Analyst Olesya Vartanyan for Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung’s International Politics and Society journal.

 

“The EU should give its mission the tools to facilitate dialogue between Armenian and Azerbaijani military and border guards posted along the border if that might help prevent or damp down violence”, she further remarked, possibly referring to something akin to the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism (IPRM) that EUMM has established on the ABLs in Georgia.

 

While there are scant other details available on EUMA, the European Union does indeed see it as a tool to create a more conducive environment for negotiations between Yerevan and Baku. Indeed, that had been the purpose of the earlier EUMCAP too, including in assisting the task of border demarcation and delimitation.

 

[…]

 

It is too early to tell how successful EUMA will prove, but many analysts believe that it could contribute to peace and stability on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. Some like Poghosyan, however, warn that, unless accompanied by the genuine resumption of the Brussels Process, its efforts could amount to little more than increased regional rivalry in the South Caucasus.

 

There are some signs of hope. Despite the sudden cancellation of a 7 December meeting between Aliyev and Pashinyan with European Council President Charles Michel in Brussels, the EU negotiation track does not appear to have collapsed.

 

“We have repeatedly reaffirmed our commitment to the peace process, namely the Brussels process”, stated Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev during a panel sessionat the Munich Security Conference on 18 February. “Yesterday during a meeting with President of the European Council Charles Michel [and] today during a meeting with Secretary of State Blinken”.

 

During the conference, incidentally, Aliyev had met with Michel to discuss the EU’s new mission in Armenia, though no other details are known. On 25 February, however, the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus announced during an interview that there were new efforts to revitalise the Brussels Process though the date for a possible meeting between Michel, Aliyev, and Pashinyan was yet to be determined.

The full article is available in English here and in Italian here.

Anyway, as an update to these pieces, the European Union’s Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the Crisis in Georgia, Toivo Klaar, was interviewed by Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty’s Yerevan Bureau. “To say that an unarmed observation mission is directed against anyone is to distort the facts,” he is quoted as saying in the interview by Jam News. Klaar is also relatively upbeat following Munich.

Anyway, for more on EUMA and its predecessor, the temporary short-term European Union Monitoring Capacity in Armenia (EUMCAP), see all my posts here. 

 

 

CONFLICT VOICES e-BOOKS

 

Conflict Voices – December 2010

Short essays on the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict
Download in English | Russian

 

Conflict Voices – May 2011

Short essays on the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict
Download in English | Russian

A tale of two meetings: More on Aliyev and Pashinyan at the Munich Security Conference

A tale of two meetings: More on Aliyev and Pashinyan at the Munich Security Conference

by | Feb 24, 2023 | Armenia, Azerbaijan, Balcani Caucaso, Nagorno Karabakh

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan meets with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in a meeting facilitated by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on 18 February 2023 © Official Photo

Actually, not a tale, but rather two articles on last weekend’s meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani delegations, led respectively by Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev, and the return to the stage of the two leaders at the annual Munich Security Conference. In the first, published by Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso, both events feature.

By some accounts it was a historic occasion. On 18 February, during the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany, the Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian leaders shared the same stage for the first time since the former Soviet Union collapsed. The panel, “Moving Mountains: How to ensure security in the South Caucasus,” also included OSCE Secretary General Helga Scmid.

 

On the eve of the discussion, however, the name of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was noticeably absent. While some tweeted their abhorrence at this omission, others instead sighed in relief given that the last time he shared a stage with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at the same event in 2020, the discussion quickly descended into bickering and mutual accusation.

 

“Never do this again,” tweeted International Crisis Group (ICG) Senior Analyst Olesya Vartanyan at the time.

 

But do it again they did, albeit in an extended format and even if Pashinyan’s presence came as a last minute surprise to everyone.

 

“His name was not mentioned in the initial proposal given to me,” Aliyev told reporters. “He probably decided to attend last night. I think this is a good development because, finally, some cooperation among the three South Caucasus countries can be started.”

 

The Azerbaijani President also told media that the idea of establishing a regional format in Tbilisi could be discussed, echoing similar comments from EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus and the Crisis in Georgia, Toivo Klaar, 10 days earlier.

 

“It is very important that the three countries of the South Caucasus work together and contribute to peace,” Klaar said in an interview with the Georgian Public Broadcaster. “And here the role of Georgia as a bridge between Armenia and Azerbaijan is very important.”

 

[…]

The full article is available here in English and in Italian here.

The second piece, this time for the Caspian Post, of course also covers both meetings and is my second article for them following one on the recent visit to Turkey by the Armenian Foreign Minister, Ararat Mirzoyan.  Again, both the trilateral meeting and the panel discussion feature.

On February 18, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a significant move towards resolving the long-standing dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan on Saturday by bringing together Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. The trilateral meeting, held on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, was attended by key officials from both sides currently involved in attempts to resolve the conflict.

 

It was also the first meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders since a summit convened by Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi at the end of October 2022. Flanked by Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried and newly appointed Senior Advisor for Caucasus Negotiations Louis L. Bono, Blinken was hopeful that a long-awaited peace agreement was possible.

 

“We believe that Armenia and Azerbaijan have a genuinely historic opportunity to secure enduring peace after more than 30 years of conflict,” the U.S. Secretary of State said in a brief opening address to media. The remainder of the meeting took place behind closed doors.

 

[…]

 

“As far as we understand in our communications with our American partners and partners from European Union, and also, as far as I understood from today’s trilateral meeting with Prime Minister Pashinyan, which was organized by Secretary Blinken, we have a common understanding that there should be a two-track approach to the situation in the region,” he said. “First, [the] Azerbaijan-Armenia peace talks track. Second, Azerbaijan’s communications with the Armenian population in Karabakh,” Aliyev added […]. 

 

[…]

 

“Pleased to hear that the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process is on track and negotiations between the two sides are continuing,” he tweeted.

The full article is available here.

 

 

CONFLICT VOICES e-BOOKS

 

Conflict Voices – December 2010

Short essays on the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict
Download in English | Russian

 

Conflict Voices – May 2011

Short essays on the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict
Download in English | Russian

MediaChecker.Ge

MediaChecker.Ge

by | Feb 21, 2023 | Georgia, Media, Social Media

Since the beginning of January I’ve been contributing to MediaChecker, a Georgian language media and digital literacy platform in Tbilisi run by a very capable team of local journalists under editor-in-chief George Gogua, a media professional that I’ve known for over 10 years now. Its mission statement is below.

Mediachecker is a media criticism and analysis platform that analyzes journalistic products published online, on television, and in the print media. We offer a space for discussion on professional standards and journalistic ethics. Journalists at the editorial office monitor broadcasters, the printed press, and the online media every day to prepare material about any revealed trends.

Anyway, two pieces have been published so far, with a third waiting in the wings.

 

 

Andrew Tate case raises concerns of social media as a gateway to harmful online content 

 

What happened?

 

On 27 December, social media influencer and former kickboxer Andrew Tate trolled environmental activist Greta Thunberg on Twitter, boasting of his collection of 33 luxury cars. The British-American asked Thunberg to give him her email address so he could send her a list of them along with their ‘enormous [carbon] emissions.’ 

 

Thunberg tweeted back with a put down that is currently the 4th most liked tweet on Twitter of all time. It simply read, ‘please do enlighten me. Email me at smalldickenergy@getalife.com.’ 

 

Her tweet was liked 3.9 million times.

 

Tate responded with a video rant that featured a Romanian pizza box. The same day he was arrested by police in Bucharest as part of an investigation into human trafficking and rape. Some believed Tate had given his location away because of the video, but that has been since been officially denied. 

 

Romanian police also raided his luxury home in Budapest and seized nearly $4 million of assets. This included 11 vehicles, the sale of which, if Tate is found guilty, could be used to financially compensate his victims.

 

What’s the problem?

 

In recent years, the use of social media by extremists has lured many into the clutches of radical and sometimes violent ideology. Though often minor in terms of the number of followers, individuals such as Tate had millions. 

 

A self-confessed misogynist, Tate used his social media platforms for hate speech, including racist and homophobic slurs, but especially outbursts against women. 

 

Why does this matter?

 

Social media has the power to influence impressionable minds online, and especially teenage boys. Moreover, experts warn, posts by individuals such as Tate could prove to be a ‘gateway’ to other extremist and violent content.

 

Broader Picture

 

According to Vice, multiple young women have been accusing Andrew Tate in violence and harassment. A documentary, released on January 12th, this year, contains several interviews with the victims in the UK, who have unsuccessfully trying to get the police investigate the matter.

 

In one of the videos, circulating in the social media, Tate even claimed he kept a machete next to his bed so that if ever a woman accused him of cheating, he would use it on her. He also said that rape victims were partly responsible for they own assault. 

 

Tate’s brand of ‘toxic masculinity’ has alarmed those concerned by the effect Tate has had on teenage boys who increasingly see him as a role model.

 

So, concerning is this influence on teenage boys that schools in the United Kingdom are even holding school meetings to address the effect that Tate’s posts have had on schoolchildren.

 

“Tate’s speeches not only scream of toxic masculinity, misogyny and victim blaming, but they express a deep lack of care for other people as human beings,” one teacher told The Independent newspaper.

 

What’s the background?

 

Andrew Tate, a self-professed misogynist, was eventually banned from YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook in 2022 for his comments about women. Meta, the company that owns Facebook, even said that Tate had been flagged under its ‘dangerous individuals and organizations’ criteria. 

 

Tate had been banned from Twitter too but was re-instated in November last year when Elon Musk acquired the company.

 

Elon Musk’s ownership of Twitter has raised many concerns that the controversial multi-billionaire will allow it to become a safe-haven for far-right and other toxic ideologies despite the platform’s policy to prevent this under its previous ownership. 

The full piece in Georgian is here.

 

Chat GPT and the Future of Journalism 

 

What Happened? 

 

In recent months, social media has been full of text content automatically generated by a new artificially intelligent chatbot, Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, better known to most as ChatGPT. 

 

It quickly caught the imagination of hundreds of thousands of users with its detailed responses to questions and its ability to perform tasks as diverse as writing poetry or song lyrics and even writing articles and stories. 

 

ChatGPT has also reportedly generated exam essays and even passed the finals for Masters Degree level university courses. 

 

Launched as a prototype in 30 November last year, ChatGPT’s parent company, OpenAI, is now valued at $29 billion.

 

Background

 

Having a computer generate responses to actual questions has long been a gold standard in testing artificial intelligence. In 1950, for example, Alan Turing, the English mathematician and computer scientist best known for deciphering German secret ciphers during World War II,  even devised the “Imitation Game” to evaluate just that. 

 

In what is also known as the Turing Test, the goal was for a computer to respond in such a way through text communication that the person asking the question thought they were actually conversing with another human. 

 

The test was not to determine whether the computer could answer questions correctly but whether or not its responses could imitate that. 

 

Though simplistic by today’s standards for benchmarking AI, The Turing Test remains an important measurement in artificial intelligence. 

 

Last Summer, it was claimed that Google’s LaMDA AI had passed the test while in December 2022 the same was claimed for ChatGPT. 

 

But many critics argue that fooling a panel of judges into thinking a computer was human is more about deception than actual intelligence.

 

Why does it matter?

 

The applications for artificial intelligence are far-reaching. Customer service call centres would have access to data and information more extensive than any human could.

 

Translation has already come a long way but machine learning would make it more accurate and support lesser-known minority languages.

 

AI-generated video can also assist producing compelling content even without a dedicated staff to do so.

 

Mediachecker already uses AI-generated thumbnails for its content.

 

Why should I care?

 

As they say, with great power comes great responsibility, but the world of artificial intelligence and algorithms remains unregulated with little oversight despite growing concerns in recent years.

 

In January 2023, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and the University of Oxford described ChatGPT’s speed and capabilities as ‘awe-inspiring and frightening at the same time.”

 

“We know from years of research that people will always use technologies in ways that their creators did not intend,” wrote Janet Haven for Nieman Lab. 

 

“We will see ChatGPT and tools like it used in adversarial ways that are intended to undermine trust in information environments,” she added.

 

The media, however, faces the greatest challenges.

In one test by the FastCompany, for example, ChatGPT invented quotes for an article.

 

“Unfortunately, often, when an inexperienced journalist uses artificial intelligence, instead of diversifying the material, it may even damage something,” Lennart Hofeditz recently told MediaChecker.

 

But there might be some cause for optimism. In another test by SkyNews, ChatGPT was asked if journalists need to adapt to artificial intelligence.

 

“It is important for journalists to be aware of the advances in AI and how they can potentially impact the journalism industry,” ChatGPT responded. “However, rather than needing to adapt to AI, it is more important for journalists to focus on honing their craft and staying up-to-date with the latest developments in their field.”

 The full piece in Georgian is here.