Artificial Intelligence and the Media: Revisiting Digital Dichotomy Theory

Abstract

The adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in journalism and other communication practices brings up long-standing debates regarding the potentials of technological innovations for good and evil in society. Since the 20th century, when McLuhan argued that technologies help extend human capacity, media technologies have been regarded as liberating and empowering. Technologies aided human manipulation of mechanical and electronic processes in the media and communication industries. Arguably, social interactions were enhanced- extending audience reach, expanding scopes of coverage, altering the limitations of time and space, and bridging critical information gaps. By adding the power of computing to mechanical and electronic innovation of the past, as done with AI, far greater is the potential of media for good or ill in 21st-century society. The network societies are now better connected. Westernised societies are linked with those in the global south, individuals and media organisations alike are creating content. The resultant gluts of information further intensify the nature of global and social challenges. Given digital divide concerns being accelerated by AI, the Digital Dichotomy Theory (DD-Theory) is proposed towards understanding the inherent global media communication dynamics.

1. Introduction

Societies need information for many purposes in their journey to advancement. Whether it is for building the right physical infrastructure or for enhancing existing social structures, societies require the right kind of knowledge and information. As the central circulatory system carries oxygen to all parts of the body and expels the toxic substances, which could harm the body, the mass media are expected to infuse life-giving information to society, even the most remote members [1]. Access to required information helps dispel impediments on the path to the wellbeing of society, be this ignorance or adherence to discordant beliefs and thoughts. The media are expected to promote harmonious living in society. Technology was meant to enhance media efficiency.

Advancement in Digital Information Communication Technologies (D-ICTs) has heralded the arrival of Artificial Intelligence (AI). However, due to the digital divide across countries and continents, the gains are uneven across the world. As AI-based media communication imperatives are increasing potent aspects of knowledge-driven societies, there is an urgency to advance theoretical insights on the issue towards gaining a better perspective of media communication imperatives, especially about the position of a technologically dependent nation. Thus, this paper examines AI within the context of Dichotomy Theory to help interrogate the position of digital media communication dependencies. Premised on empirical inferences such as Technological Determinism as pre-existing theoretical frames, the paper argues that technologies may influence media communication imperatives in every society. However, there is a digital dichotomy and often affects the actual media communication outcomes, especially in developing countries like Nigeria.

2. Purpose and objectives

The paper aims to examine artificial intelligence and the media within the context of revisiting digital dichotomy theory. To achieve this aim, the following objectives are set:

1. To examine some of the perspectives on artificial intelligence.

2. To interrogate some conceptual framework on digital dichotomy.

3. To ascertain the realities of digital dichotomy amidst artificial intelligence.

3. Methodological approach

This paper is exploratory, as it utilises, the descriptive research method whereby relevant literature, documents, and records were consulted and analysed based on the subject matter. The paper is predominantly based on information derived from secondary sources, such as relevant texts, journals, official publications, historical documents, and the Internet, which served as tangible sources of insight into the analysis based on thematic areas. The method was used to evaluate such findings with other existing literature on the subject. The method help findings in the works available, check the consistency of such findings, and evaluates such findings with other findings.

4. Scoping review

The call by Nyam [2] to maximise the impact of AI in such countries, governments, and other stakeholders as well as communication scholars ought to put all resources and expertise towards meeting AI-oriented digital media communication needs of the society is adequate. Given digital divide concerns being accelerated by AI, the need to revisit the Digital Dichotomy Theory (DD-Theory) is important as this paper proposed it to be a better way of understanding the inherent global media communication dynamics. This is so because the basic assumption of the theory is that entities without the same predisposing factors will often significantly vary in the adoption time of current experience(s). Thus, AI does aid media communication realities to play out and affect humanity in such disparities.

Nyam [2] observed that the whole gamut of media classifications and applications, as well as operations, seem to be dependent on the available communication technologies. Today, digital media and communication had definitively advanced from basic software to AI. Sociology-Central in Nyam [2] affirms how the development of computers, for example, has increased audiences’ spread and in turn made it more difficult to clearly distinguish between ‘mass media’ and ‘non-mass media’. This expression relates to the contemporary influences of the new media upon the old ‘traditional media.’ The concept of ‘new’ applies to media technologies that have altered media classifications, with great contempt for communication characteristics of the traditional media.

Additionally, AI has advanced media communication reality. Notwithstanding, the regulatory framework is needed. The issue of the digital divide has indeed placed an extra burden on media scholars as well as professionals, and communication policymakers in developing countries. For instance, Adjei [3] mentions how old media, newspapers, television, and radio had the concept of feeding information based on the ground research for their listeners and viewers’ in places such as Ghana, where radio and television stations tailor niche agenda-driven programs of political parties.

Pate [1] observed that where technology has been efficiently harnessed for the social, economic, and cultural wellbeing of groups and nations, a knowledge society emerges. Media technologies have always been a concern. Sometimes they had been viewed from the wide-angle lens of their facilitation of development communication goals, politics and good governance, the institution of democratic culture equality, and social justice. At other times, innovations in media technologies are viewed more narrowly within particular sectors, such as particular forms of messages, scope, and nature of communication enabled. The goals in health communication and marketing communication are likewise how to effect desired social behaviours. The concern in simplest terms is whether societies are never simple. As such, further questions are raised beneficial for which strata in society, under what conditions, and to what ends? These are the concerns evident in this paper regarding Artificial Intelligence.

Most of the African countries are broadly classified as developing. “As rapidly as technology is developing in the rest of the world, in Africa, things have moved at a slower pace,” ([4], p. 52). The implication is that the global media imperative may have fundamental influences, but media experiences in developing nations are lagging. In this perspective, the position of the digital dichotomy is clear. The theory offers explanations to the power of media communication landscapes, and experiences between developed (invention driven media communication environment), and developing countries (adoption driven media communication environments). This has resulted in varying rates of AI-based digital updates and a ‘global village.’ Yes, this may be a global village, but the ‘globe’ has unequal media communication digits.

It is apparent in the literature that the adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in journalism and other communication practices brings up long-standing debates regarding the potentials of technological innovations for good and evil in society. The paper, therefore, beamed the light on contemporary manifestations of global challenges, though understandably, the Nigerian context features prominently. Still, within the context of the literature, findings are shadowed by unprecedented global occurrences; the world has been bedevilled with a range of these in recent times. The paper validates the theoretical postulations that stark the double-edged sword that media technologies can be.

Arguably, since the 20th century, days when McLuhan argued that technologies help extend human capacity; media technologies have been regarded as liberating and empowering. Technologies aided human manipulation of mechanical and electronic processes in the media and communication industries. Similarly, social interactions were enhanced – extending audience reach, expanding scopes of coverage, altering the limitations of time and space, and bridging critical information gaps. With these came the potential to shift the balance of power in societies as desirable in democratic societies.

As observed by Pate [1] by adding the power of computing to mechanical and electronic innovation of the past, as done with Artificial Intelligence, far greater is the potential of media for good or ill in 21st-century society. The networked societies are now better connected. Westernised societies are linked with those in the global south, individuals and media organisations alike are creating content. The resultant gluts of information further intensify the nature of global and social challenges. The preceding arguments have created an important knowledge vacuum in the literature for this paper to be conceived.

5. Perspectives on artificial intelligence

Scholars like Wilson [5] observed that the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) heralds an era, one of machines or devices that are capable of learning by themselves (machine learning), and of imitating the human thoughts. The processes and concepts that relate to AI have been around since the 1950s. The term was coined by John McCarthy in 1955 and was popularised in 1956 at a research congregation in Dartmouth College in the United States. Furthermore, the United States Department of Defence focused on the development of Ai in the 1960s and produced computers to imitate basic human reasoning. Casey [6] remarks that although, AI is not new, it has become a technology of immense significance that anyone can hardly predict precisely where it is heading.

Within this context, AI is about systems that can learn and evolve through experience, which would most times carry our specialised tasks in gaming, decisions making and to transform large, complex, ambiguous information into real insights, to solve some of the world’s most enduring problems. Sraders [7] sees AI as the science and engineering of making intelligent computerised machines that are programmed to closely imitate human thoughts and actions for the purpose of analysing data to address a variety of problems or execute tasks. It is a computer science filed that ensures the creation of intelligent computerised machines which are enabled to perform tasks, which normally requires human intelligence. These tasks include speech recognition, translation between languages, visual perception, etc.

Although AI is generally a broad term, there are different types or kids of AI, designed to perform different tasks. For example, there is specialised and general AI. Sraders [7] states that specialised AI is AI that is programmed to perform a specific task. Its programming is meant to be able to learn to perform a certain task – not multiple. On the other hand, general AI is not limited to one specific tasks- it is able to learn and complete numerous different tasks and functions. In general, much of the cutting-edge, boundary-pushing AI developments of recent years have been general AI.

AI is made up of a large variety of sub categories and areas in which they are applied some of these sub categories and the advanced abilities they offer include:

1. Machine learning: machine learning mimics human learning patterns, to gain an understanding of unstructured data sets and generate intelligent decisions such as medical decision making, Healthcare analytics, Bioinformatics, Emotional detection, Fraud detection, Cyber Security, Procurement optimization, Customer interactions and Optimised gaming.

2. Natural Language Processing (NLP): this permits an accurate analysis of data sets and communication of insights that touch on Communication systems, Legal assistants, Cognitive retail, Personal assistants and Web speech

3. Machine perception: simulate the human perception of the environment and extracts information from different data sources. For example, Medical imaging, Manufacturing, Service industry, Financial industry, Autonomous delivery, Transit safety, Geospatial analytics and Childcare.

4. Predictive analytics: analyse historical data to predict future outcomes. For examples, Marketing, Data extraction, Social Network analytics.

Therefore, in recent times, AI has risen to the forefront of public discourse because of its significant influence in the areas of cloud computing, big data, the Internet of Things (IOT), virtual reality and its potential to bring new possibilities for global development [8]. AI is already transforming web search, advertising, e-commerce, finance, logistics, media, and several other areas. The target of AI technology is to provide systems that would enable human-like interactions with software and provide decision-support for specific tasks [9].

Although AI technology is very effective for certain specific tasks, it is still limited and far from matching the highly diverse cognitive abilities of humans. There are still deficiencies in the AI technology. For example, virtual assistants such as Orange’s Djingo, Amazon’s Alexa, etc. cannot yet respond to questions using natural language, but this is surmountable in not too distant future. Re-echoed some of the limitations of AI to include data labeling, which has to be done by human, explainability problem, generalizability of learning and bias in data and algorithms, all of which would require human assistance for now.

6. Conceptual framework on digital dichotomy

Digital dichotomy simply refers to the digital divide. It is the centre of the conceptual frame of this paper. This hitherto referred to as ‘technological divide.’ As technologies have progressed into the digital phase, the divide has expanded more into a digital dimension-hence the term ‘digital divide.’ It has been the hallmark of persisting debate between developing nations and the otherwise developed ones. This is as a result of global media being a huge empire built on several years of inventions and innovations that have in turn been consistently improved upon. This technology remains dominated by the West (the large information-developed Northern hemisphere).

Therefore, Nyam [2] is of the view that many countries have at one point or the other lamented that the technical capacity of the Western media has been abused towards information flow disorder against developing nations. This position was largely termed the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) debate. In ensuring dynamics, the international media, many of which are based in Europe and North America, as well as modern Asia are believed to have the capacity to influence the media outcomes of developing societies, mainly in Africa and South America.

Within this context, scholars like Ozuru and Ekeanyanwu [10] remarked how communication at the international level comes with many consequences. Some of these consequences arise because of some imbalances, news manipulations, and sometimes, misrepresentation of some nations and people in the media systems of others. Corroborating this, Ciboh [11] observed that in 1973, governments of non-aligned nations met and discussed media and information flow issues, suggesting ways to counter the real or perceived imbalance.

Based on the preceding, there is an apparent digital dichotomy. The global digital divide is not denied, except there is a feeling that it is not a very valid point that can devalue the role of digital technology in much of modern existence. The global divide describes the unequal distribution of information, and communication technologies across nations. It has become a description for the information-have, and have-nots, although, much of these positions are complex to understand. In the words of argued that within academic circles it is well established that the digital divide encompasses more than physical access to D-ICTs. It is also a function of how D-ICTs are used. It is crucial to develop policies and programs that would bridge the global digital divide through D-ICTs.

For instance, former United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan agrees that the digital divide is a serious issue, Annan’s successor, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, admits, and leaders of the World Bank think so too. President James Wolfensohn, former World Bank even described the divide as “one of the greatest impediments to development.” However, the significance of the digital divide has been challenged on several occasions, like Bill Gates thinking that the digital divide deserves no special attention because it is simply a symptom of economic disparity across nations, and thus the lack of access to information technologies in developing nations merely reflects the poverty level of those nations. Gates at a conference on the digital divide said “most of the world doesn’t have cars, but we don’t talk about the auto divide.” Steve Jobs, Co-founder of Apple, reiterated the views saying that the so-called “digital divide” is “just a new sticker that people use to cover up a more important word: poverty.”

In whatever point critics look at it, the significance of the digital divide becomes apt when culture, and media orientation of audience from a technology-adopting environment fail to key into the original intentions of inventors, as compared to audiences from a technology-inventive environment like the United States. Again, the digital divide becomes a more serious issue when the economic, and political policy, legal framework, and infrastructure of developing technology-adopting nations fail to meet up with international standards, and best media-communication practices.

The essence of digital technology is what prompted the conviction that the world is “truly” global. Yet some scholars are still sceptical that the export of digital technologies has not fully bridged the gap between developed, and developing worlds, because the hitherto less developed third world has not been able to conquer attraction to media contents of the West.

Digital technology is the reason for the conviction that the world is “truly” global. However, some scholars are still sceptical that the export of digital technologies have not fully bridged the gap between developed and developing worlds, because, the hitherto less developed third world have not been able to conquer attraction to media contents of the West. The West may also be genuinely interested in media contents of most developing countries, except that media production capacities and qualities have to be consistently upgraded even as the technologies may remain import-based [2]. See the manifestation in the diagram below:

Source: (Mabweazara in [2]).

7. Theoretical framework

This paper finds the tenets of Technological Determinism, and Mediamorphosis Theories imperative. The two theories are considerably used in this paper together in a non-exclusive sense.

Technological Determinism applies to this paper because of its generic nature towards understanding how technologies are not just the base for mass communication, and contemporary mass media operations, but also how changes in technologies are determinants for changes in society, and respective media thereof. In other words, the theory applies to the generic influence of technology on humanity [12]. The Mediamorphosis Theory, on the other hand, is more specifically postulated towards a framework for understanding the constantly changing practices, and application in the media industry that can only be attributed to technology, which is hardly attributed to anything other than the technologies employed. As observed by Baran and Davis [13] Marshall McLuhan postulated the Technological Determinism Theory in 1970 towards predicting, and evaluating the role of all technologies. The explicit position relates to how technologies have been and are expected to transform media organisation, and experiences.

Thus, the two theories appear to be of the same continuum. While Technological Determinism is about the sociological implications of technologies in general, Mediamorphosis is particularly the implication of technologies to media convergences, and the opportunities for dynamic media orientations in the new, and conventional media [14].

Therefore, the adopted theories apply to this paper because of the importance of technology to society as well as the mass and the new media. Moreover, the role of technologies in the changing, constantly improving, but also diversifying forms of contemporary media, and communication means these theories are relevant. The basic assumptions, implications, and relative applications of information communication technologies justify this comparative analysis of the operational differences of the new, and traditional media, especially across societies at varying levels. For example, Sayad [15] corroborates that 60% of teachers across the world are not actively going to deal with D-ICT; just as besides 95% of students are not actively going to school, “digital mentoring” remains a key element for quality in education- lack of such digital aspects to education makes “10 points difference in learning within a country (micro-regions).”

8. The realities of digital dichotomy amidst artificial intelligence

In the case of the developing world, most of the advanced nations are fast employing legislation towards catching up with the uses, and applications of the new media amidst, or without synergies with the traditional media. Another flashpoint is in the area of investment. Governments and the corporate, or civil society in most developing countries are yet to call to question the urgency of digital technology, let alone understand the scientific cost that is involved over time. The advanced world plays hugely as they continue to enjoy and export to the digital developing countries. Satellite technology, for example, which tends to be dependent significantly on digitisation, is constantly being maintained and researched by the developed world [16].

Already, the Telecommunication Development Bureau (TDB) of the International Telecommunications Union is advocating for worldwide network relative understanding, and collaboration among policymakers, and regulators. Prefer to call “disruptive” or “destabilising” technologies. Others in the developed world seem to favour the term “transformative” technologies. Thus, technology is currently being deployed in almost every facet of our most recent civilisations, and modern life context. In this perspective, complex mobile networks such as G5 are heralded along with increased technical and human operational intricacies. As such, the developing societies would need to catch up in terms of not just computational intelligence, but also perception intelligence, and cognitive intelligence.

Similarly, regarding the digital dichotomies, the adoption of ICT is seriously accelerating. The diffusion rate is rapid but also leaves more gaps and or consequences across societies with varying levels of development. As noted early, theoretical assumptions that enable sensible assumptions about contemporary media communication do exist. However, instances of proportional frame of reference to new media and communication such as Technological Determinism Theory are so far limited to understanding the spread, and influences of technology, and far less about what has, or can hinder or limit the overall benefits of D-ICTs. This is where DD-Theory fits in as a propositional frame of reference towards making improved technology and relevantly improved D-ICTs. Indeed, DD-Theory stands relevant as a new theoretical frame of reference for appraising the increasing global media-communication imperatives.

Besides, the status of technology in development is mainly accelerating and concentrated in developed wealthier nations, such as the United States, China, and European Union. New media realities in developing societies, such as media self-learning, self-controlling, and self-communication stand-alone intelligent system [15] would demand rapidly improved understanding, or relative media-communication dichotomies across the world be enabled.

Entities without the same predisposing factors will often significantly vary in the adoption time of current experience(s). Adoption is not just due to capacity, but also time lapse-effect in the spread of invention orientation, and practice. This perhaps may be the reason why Ngwainmbi [17] concluded that a more limited form of globalisation might emerge just as there is a tendency for under-developed, and developing societies to over-depend on the so-called “world superpowers” for their protection. In line with the relative conclusion, Ngwainmbi [17] notes that the operational meaning of “superpower, advanced country”, has to be redefined by scholars, political readers, media practitioners as well as knowledge-driven policymakers.

Nyam [2] cap it all, by saying that it is encouraging to collaborate towards improved global digital media-communication experiences. Aspect such as technological algorithmic innovations are needed at varying levels across nations, and journalism professionals, need to improve towards prevention or limiting hate speech, enhancement of fact-checking mechanisms, ethical encryption media practices among other merits. Irrespective of the ongoing advancements in network amidst digital dichotomy, such global D-ICTs conscious, and cautious collaboration can enable better learning among security operatives, digital rights literacy, and relative laws, as well as reasonable accountability from social media providers, and users.

9. Conclusion and recommendations

This paper examines the fundamental issue of digital dominance in information technologies. The paper interrogates how developing countries may, or have been left behind in the journey towards building knowledge network societies because of poor technological infrastructure, and systems. In particular, the paper examines the challenges relating to the communication, instrumentation, and monopolisation of network technologies, and the impacts of this on developing economies. This analysis rekindles the global information order of the past, such as media dominance, information inequity, asymmetrical, and imbalanced information flows. The paper proposes a new way of addressing the extant inequities and inequalities.

The paper adopted the position of Nyam [2] and postulates the Digital Dichotomy Theory (DD-Theory), that once there are significant differences in the predisposing factors of society, there will be digital technology adoption differences that would occur. Such difference will not be just due to financial, and physical capacity, but also due to time lapse-effect in the spread of invention, orientation, and practice(s).

Again, what makes a village? The world is not truly a “global village” as regards the dictum by McLuhan, and it will be difficult to be because there will always be a digital dichotomy between entities. There exist forms of a digital dichotomy because of the following reasons: the adoption difference(s) in previous technologies; dynamism in cultural, economic, political, and religious systems of entities across the globe; the time and space lapse between invention(s) entities, and adoption entities. Mere resistance to change, change cannot be forced but persuaded.

There is a digital dichotomy that places developing societies on the side of playing catch-up, governments, and citizens must be aware, and active in the ongoing digital technological imperatives. Besides, governments in many nations still hinder, and or censor global, and local information. AI may be taking undue advantage of such unfortunate dynamism of improved digital communication (Jimoh in [2]). He argued that this is not about the future of media communication in developing nations or states, but for the overall advantageous possibilities, and convergences of the 21st century.

The paper subscribes to the call of Nyam [2] that in a global media scenario, developing societies cannot afford to significantly lag. It is good that developing countries with huge human and natural resources should be challenged to be on the information superhighway. This may serve better than otherwise. Also, this is expected to harvest more towards development. However, research, and training in media professionalism, and computing (programming, hard or software engineering, internet security, among others) are strongly recommended towards maximisation of the convergences, and synergies of media forms. Digital technologies depend on excellent software programming and networking.