What does the future of our information ecosystem look like?

The AI in Journalism Futures project explored how AI could fundamentally transform it over the next five to 15 years. Almost 1,000 people contributed to the project, which used a scenario-planning approach. 

The project outlined five key scenarios, some of which already seem to be underway:  

1. The “machines in the middle” scenario envisions an information ecosystem in which a large portion of journalistic and civic information is gathered, processed, assembled, and distributed via AI. Humans are both the sources and consumers of this information, but AI mediates nearly every process within the information ecosystem, essentially “becoming the newsroom.” 

“This scenario describes an AI information ecosystem that operates largely without a dedicated information producing profession or class — essentially without journalists,” the report said. “This does not necessarily mean that such an ecosystem would operate without editorial oversight, or even without the values and ethical principles of journalism, but that such oversight, values, and principles would be applied via an AI layer between sources of information and consumers of information.”

2. The “power flows to those who know your needs” scenario envisions an information ecosystem in which AI can essentially create any conceivable experience of journalism or information, regardless of format, style, medium, etc., and regardless of the source of information.

The central question is what, specifically, to produce for each individual consumer in every specific consumption situation. 

“Whether such an ecosystem is utopian or dystopian would depend not only on who controls AI but also on who knows what to do with it. This is essentially a situation in which AI knows you better than you know yourself, and therefore it is in your own interests to give up agency to that AI.”

3. The “omniscience for me, noise for you” scenario envisions an information ecosystem in which different individuals and different groups in society experience vastly different information realities because of the different ways in which they engage with AI. One particularly significant situation could be where some people are essentially empowered by AI-assisted information tools, while others are not.

4. The “AI with its own agency and power” scenario envisions an information ecosystem without meaningful human oversight in which very powerful AI systems control the gathering and experience of information for most people. 

“This scenario is not a ‘Terminator’-style takeover of human societies by superintelligent machines, and it does not assume any kind of sentience or consciousness within AI systems. Instead, it describes a more nuanced situation in which people — consumers, engineers, editors, or executives — gradually give up more and more agency to adaptive AI systems until humans no longer control those systems in any meaningful way,” the report said. 

5. The “AI on a leash” scenario envisions an information ecosystem in which the potential impact of AI has been substantially restricted by societies or by the collective action of consumers. 

Some key themes that emerged:

• Personalisation of information, presented as both an end-state and as a driving force leading to other end states. For example, new capabilities to tailor content in multi-modal formats, language, literacy level, etc., according to user preference, could create an environment where information is ubiquitously highly personalised. This hyper personalisation then leads to multiple and often conflicting information realities and filter bubbles, as well as increasing audience fragmentation.
• Information and mis/dis/mal-information at mass scale. 
• The rise of AI agents (intelligent systems that perform autonomous tasks) and AI assistants (a user-facing system that performs tasks, often directed through a conversational interface). 
• The rise of both individual human and machine influencers, creators, personalities, and celebrities as user-facing distribution channels. 
• Inability of legacy news media to adapt to changes. You can almost hear the authors of the report sighing as they write: “There was considerable skepticism about the ability of traditional journalism institutions to adapt successfully to an AI-driven future, and participants tended to envision coming changes in terms of power shifts away from journalists, with little attention to how those changes might increase or decrease value for audiences.”

If you’d like to subscribe to my bi-weekly newsletter, INMA members can do so here.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .