We find ourselves at a new turning point in the evolution of technology. Having progressed from Artificial Intelligence based on machine learning to generative AI — a shift that has already transformed our world — we are now moving towards agentic AI, or AI that acts with autonomy. This evolution is certain to have a considerable impact on the world of work, on the management of resources, and on politics. From the perspective of communications, it is vital to stay up to date and to understand how to discuss these changes. Barbara Carfagna, a journalist who has come to specialise in digital topics over the course of her career, sat down with Lightbox to analyse the role of communications during this time of immense — and, above all, rapid — upheavals in science and technology.
The new challenge of communication and the speed of algorithms. Interview with Barbara Carfagna
The rapidly changing world imposes a new urgency on communicators and companies whose primary objective is to help users understand the technological mechanisms in order to reassert their decision-making autonomy.
What’s the most significant challenge for science journalism, particularly when it must tackle issues with immense social and scientific-technological impacts, like Artificial Intelligence?
«It’s a fresh challenge every day, because Artificial Intelligence is evolving at incredible speed. It’s precisely this speed that forms the cornerstone of disseminating information, while simultaneously presenting the problem: it’s changing how we read and how we learn. We’re all going faster and faster, and are less likely to stop for a lengthy read or explanation. Until recently, therefore, the challenge was to act as a counterbalance to the algorithms that exploit this lack of time to mould behaviours and promote rapid acceptance of their suggestions. Our job, instead, was to grab people’s interest so that they would stop and understand how important it is, at a time when attempts are being made to direct individual choices, to understand what’s happening, how it’s happening, and to preserve the ability to choose one’s own path independently. Now, we’re at a more advanced stage, involving communications and journalism. Google has already launched UCP, the Universal Commerce Protocol: a new standard for e-commerce guided by AI. Machines are starting to sell to other machines. Communication is changing: it needs to be less emotional and more authentic and accurate, because it will be received and collated by machines, not by humans. In the months ahead, we will find out how this will also change journalism. For now, we have to be aware of it and its possible implications.»
Conversations about the energy and digital twin transition are often conducted largely in technical jargon. How can these concepts be made clearer for the general public, without sacrificing scientific accuracy?
«When it comes to the mass media, it's important to focus not so much on purely technological explanations, but rather on the social impact. To date, one strategy has been to use language with closer ties to philosophy in order to attract attention, which will then be directed towards the technological matters. That’s how I personally started off: fifteen years ago, when everybody was talking about the internet in economic terms or as an industrial revolution, I spoke about it as a philosophical revolution. Shifting the focus encouraged people to listen and generated a consistent level of interest. For this reason, it's necessary to emphasise the social impact and the effects on individual cognition, as people are interested in learning how their way of thinking and their abilities to learn and to make decisions will be influenced. Now, however, with this speed and this new agentic capacity, the regulatory side of things — which is underpinned by the philosophy — is falling behind. We need to convince people that they must understand these technologies if they want to keep their independence.»
«Good information flows now require effort on both sides: the party receiving the message must also prepare itself, must study. Everybody must be ready to take on board information that updates every day; we must understand that those who don’t prepare will end up on the side simply receiving calculations rather than making them. The risk lies in having less useful information.»
Looking at the future of communication on topics like sustainability and technology, bearing in mind cases of “greenwashing” or “techwashing”, what critical skills and ethical approach must a journalist or communicator master in order to tackle these topics effectively?
«Sometimes it’s necessary to take a fairly direct approach, particularly when you’ve got to change the narrative. For example, I started off by including videos of philosophers and theologians with a certain media profile in broadcasts on Italian television, like Speciale TG1 and Codice: la vita digitale. Today, the role of ethics remains important, but has to be dealt with in a different way. It is crucial to focus on the fact that not even those creating these systems know exactly what goes on between the input and the output; it’s a black box. Talking about ethics in the same way as before — as we did with generative AI, for example — is pointless; we need to change our approach and break up the pre-existing narrative.
Decades ago, it was useful to tackle these topics from a certain point of view, partly to facilitate the emergence of an adequate regulatory framework like the AI Act. Now, however, we have to recognise that this regulation is already looking a bit “creaky”. We can’t talk about ethics in generic terms any longer, we must talk more about technical and practical matters, to spread understanding of how these systems are built and how they will evolve. Narratives change quickly: we must prevent topics like ethics or privacy from becoming the equivalent of greenwashing and stay conscious of timing and real-life developments at all times. Now, for example, is the moment to talk of other things.»
In terms of communication with local communities, what do you see as the fundamental aspects that must be considered by companies who deal with infrastructure of a critical and strategic nature for Italy, with projects that involve the entire country?
«To start by looking at the big picture, we’ve got to encourage reflection on the fact that geopolitics and the power of nations no longer rely on the size of their physical territories or their stockpiles of heavy weapons, but are determined by technological capacity and energy capacity, which are becoming more and more intertwined. We need to spread awareness that a country is a central player only if it has sovereign technological and energy capacity, even if it is a small country. States which are advanced in terms of technology or energy will become more central than countries which are geographically larger but less developed in those terms. This approach encourages infrastructure to be assessed and accepted in a new light. Given this backdrop, companies must change the old paradigm. They must be sure to communicate not only about what they produce, but to provide context for the powers that their production represents, powers which are radically different from what they were five years ago.»