Meta AI recently told me about my own campaign, and used a Mississippi state senate voter guide as a source. The problem is that I’m running in Massachusetts.
I was checking the performance of one of my Instagram posts when I noticed a purple prompt labeled “Chris Oates campaign platform.” I clicked it and Meta AI provided a summary of my platform. But it was odd to see a line about lowering prescription drug prices, which I don’t believe I’ve spoken about. I support it, but it hasn’t been a priority for the campaign, so I haven’t written about it.
I checked the source for that line and it was, inexplicably, a voter guide for a Mississippi State Senate race.
I am running for the Massachusetts House. I have never run in Mississippi. I do not think I have ever even been in Mississippi. Yet an artificial intelligence system embedded inside Instagram, which I use to communicate directly with voters, had apparently blended someone else’s campaign material into mine.
I’m okay with being associated with lowering prescription drug prices. But what happens when the imported position is offensive, extreme or simply the opposite of what a candidate believes?
The problem is larger than one Instagram prompt.
Voters increasingly encounter synthesized answers before original sources. Google places AI Overviews atop search results. Meta says its assistant can search the Web and personalize answers using information from users’ profiles and engagement. That means two voters may not even get the same account of a candidate.
I warned about this in CommonWealth Beacon last year after persuading ChatGPT, in only a few prompts, to recommend candidates in Somerville’s municipal election. At the time, the danger felt hypothetical.
Now I have watched an AI invent part of my own platform during an active campaign.
I do not pretend there is an easy regulatory fix. AI companies should provide clear sourcing, correction procedures and public audits for election-related answers. Candidates should check regularly how major systems describe them.
That matters especially in local and legislative races, where sparse coverage leaves algorithms hunting across a noisy Internet for material to summarize. There is a real risk that in a few years candidates will be creating fake news websites with smears against their opponents to get sucked up into chatbots and laundered for voters.
Our strongest defense is still independent local journalism. Reporters interview candidates, compare promises, preserve context and attach names to their work. Massachusetts should support that public good through a refundable payroll tax credit for local journalists. A state proposal, H.3232, included payroll, subscription and local-advertising credits before being sent to a study order this spring. It deserves revival.
AI will increasingly be brought into democracy. We should ensure it has trustworthy reporting to learn from, or, even better, and voters can skip it and go straight to the news.
Chris Oates is running for state representative in the 34th Middlesex, which includes parts of Somerville and Medford. The seat is held by Christine Barber, in the office since 2015 but running for Pat Jehlen’s state Senate seat. Oates faces Somerville city councilor Will Mbah and Medford School Committee member Paul Ruseau.
About The Author
