Truth Trial - Designing the immersive experience of the future, where fact-checking is enhanced by artificial intelligence
Replicating the world where we collectively decide the truth
CLIENT Institute of Design (Educational purpose)
Challenge
Envision the future of fact-checking and speculate on the impact and consequences of that possible future. Facilitate discussion as to whether it is a desirable future or one to be avoided.
Solution
Create and exhibit various artifacts to design a space for people to “experience” the future we envision. We picked a topic “Truth, Belief, Conspiracy” and demonstrated the possible future world where all the truth is determined through democratic voting.
We now live in a post-truth world where the line between facts & belief is increasingly blurred. With the world more connected than ever before, the spread of misinformation is rampant.
In order to control what is “fact” and what is “fiction”, the world looks for something that is post-human. Turning to an AI to sort the truth from the fiction, the world enters a second era of enhanced truth-ness. Even as new facts are discovered, the AI acts, altering history books and reports and any reference to “past truths”.
In order to ensure that misinformation no longer spreads, the AI demands increased control over society and social norms. People are screened and assigned a “belief factor”. Those with higher belief factors are given more important roles in society, as they are more likely to follow the path of the AI, and therefore of the “universal truth”. Every single action or decision you make is now tracked and influences your role in society, ensuring that the system can’t be externally influenced and upended.
Our project presents a snapshot of this future world, showcasing the impact it has on society as well as the trends that emerge around facts and truth, as well as conspiracies and anarchist movements that grow in this new era. We show the benefits and drawbacks of such a system, and ask people to consider the implications of adopting such a system, as well as the implications of the alternative.
What does the future of truth look like?
How will we manage understanding what is true for us in a sea of misinformation and untrustworthiness?
What does truth look like for others, not only humans?
These questions are part of our experiential future, where we propose that the truth of any topic can be decided with a democratic vote from citizens that are informed by multiple sources of evidence.
Role
Speculative Designer, Futurist, Videographer
Collaborators
Jorge Martinez Arana
Nishanth Srikanth
Pranjal Shah
Instructor
Project Duration
October 2022 - December 2022 (in Chicago)
Outcome
Trial #152 : Do Blood Types Determine Personality?
Introduction
Imagine you are with us at the exhibition.
Those are the propaganda posters you see everywhere for a while now.
You are entering this room and you see these artifacts.
This poster lists the results of past trials. Each item includes the subject, room number, results, and notes.
Thank you for participating in the trial #152 today. Your can join that group. Please wear this apron, and here is your name tag. Please turn off your mobile devices. You are not allowed to use them during the trial.
Video from the Ministry of Truth
It’s time. Please look at the monitor.
Summary
The trial starts with the opening remark from the director of the Ministry of Truth Rosie Tanaka. People have been overwhelmed with the amount of misinformation being spread across the globe, fuelled by technological advancement. With a partnership with the tech company Axiomatic, the Ministry of Truth is trying to build fact-check AI to help people distinguish correct information from fake news and conspiracy theories. The AI will ultimately be implemented in the Internet and displays whether the information is accurate or not, as shown in the image on the left. (Credibility is displayed in green squares)
The Ministry of Truth believes that there is no such thing as an objective truth. As a democratic coalition of countries, we will decide if the information is accurate or not, based on voting. That’s why you are here today to participate in the trial.
The Ministry of Truth prepared evidence from a wide range of sources to help you make a decision. However, we all know humans are fallible, so you will be presented with evidence from non-humans as well. Now, let’s begin.
Evidence from Humans
First of all, please listen to testimonies from humans.
Excerpt
“The article written by Japanese scientist states that blood type explained less than 0.3% of the total variance in personality. This is pseudo-science.”
Samuel. H,
Scientist in Biology and Immunology
“Several studies have revealed changes in patients behavior after an organ transplant, especially a heart transplant. I believe there’s a similar effect for blood transfusion.”
Srishti. S,
Surgeon
“Emil von Dungern, a German scholar, started to compare people’s and animals’ blood in 1910. This is how the idea of blood type was first associated with personality.”
Evelyn. N,
Researcher / Historian
“A recent study from University of Vermont’s hematologist shows that blood type is related to cognitive health issues, which could affect personality.”
Daren. R,
Neurobiologist
Evidence from Non-Humans
Next, please listen to testimonies from non-humans.
Excerpt
“Gorillas are blood type B, but they are not all aggressive or selfish, they have lots of varied personalities. Here are some translated interactions from Google Translate.”
Sophia. M,
Zoo Keeper
“My guard dog used to be super aggressive. When he got hit by a car, he got a blood transfusion by a golden retriever. He became super friendly and calm.”
Rana. K,
Dog Owner
“84% of people who require blood transfusions in accidents happened to be blood type AB. Statistically, it means those people are tend to be careless.”
NBT-437,
Blood Bank Centrifuge
“My owner’s blood type is A. Every time something happens, their heart rate jumps. It might mean that A-type people have tendency to be a little bit timid.”
Apple Watch Model 36
Quotes from Social Media
Finally, please listen to what people are saying about this topic on social media.
Excerpt
Discussion
You have 5min to make your decision. You may also discuss in your team.
Before you make your decision, we have one announce to make. Please disregard the testimony of the historian/researcher Dr. Evelyn Nelson. The latest result from the trial #147 taking place in a separate room affected her truth score and it she is no longer trustworthy. She was supporting the information which turned out to be misinformation in today’s trial.
Voting
Let’s move on to the voting session. Once you have made your decision, insert your hand into the machine. When your vote is cast, the light will turn from green to blue.
Closing / Results Announcement
We confirmed everyone’s vote and the result is out.
Post-Trial Artifacts
This newspaper is published immediately following today's trial, showcasing how the recently established "truth" is echoing throughout society.
To see the full paper, click here.
In another trial, it has been newly determined that people's personalities should dictate their jobs. As it has now been decided that blood types influence personalities, individuals are updating their CVs to emphasize their blood types.
To see the all CV samples, click here.
Reflection
While we didn't directly involve participants (ID students) in a vote regarding whether blood types determine personalities, nearly all of them expressed a preference for the "No" option (indicating that blood types do not determine personalities) after the presentation. Participants, particularly given our location within the US culture, may have regarded this topic with superstition and found it somewhat absurd. However, it's important to note that this theory holds popularity in certain Asian countries, particularly in Japan, where a significant number of individuals subscribe to this belief. This experiment serves as evidence that a universal truth is elusive and that the definition of "truth" is deeply influenced by the socio-cultural contexts people inhabit. Additionally, it's observed that people tend to uphold their beliefs regardless of the evidence presented.
We find ourselves confronted with an increase in deceptively credible misinformation, which predisposes us to categorize alternative truths as conspiracy theories. This tendency further erodes our capacity to acknowledge and embrace alternative sources of information. This situation might drive us to delegate some aspects of "truth-decision-making" to external processes, such as Artificial Intelligence or statistical analysis.
The envisioned future is just one interpretation of how our interaction with truth might evolve. In this scenario, we sought to illustrate the repercussions of heeding or disregarding potentially valid information sources. These choices could profoundly impact various facets of our lives, perhaps mirroring the way our past decisions have influenced other forms of life.
Disclaimer: Fictional Representation of Academic Concepts
The evidence provided is entirely fictional and based on real academic concepts. Names of individuals, institutions, and companies are fabricated and do not correspond to real entities. Any resemblance is coincidental, and this content is not meant to associate with or depict actual individuals, institutions, or companies. This is a work of fiction created for illustrative purposes only.
Approach
1.Define the subject and situate the playground
Once the team was assembled, we engaged in extensive discussions regarding our individual interests and potential themes for the upcoming exhibit. Following several rounds of brainstorming sessions, we ultimately arrived at a consensus to center our focus on the subject of the "Future of Truth, Belief, and Conspiracy." This choice stemmed from our shared intrigue with the increasingly indistinct line between fiction and factual information in recent times.
Furthermore, we collectively determined that our envisioned playground for exploration would be set 30 years into the future, precisely in the year 2052, building upon the foundation of 2022.
2. Scan for signals of change
Our design process was marked by starting research on the very broad topic of conspiracy theories and how they are handled across different cultures, leading to some of the analogous cases presented from around the world. Then we moved on to search for a topic that included the potential for an experiential future, and introduce the topics from class we were interested in, mainly non-human design and AI data handling.
To be more specific, we divided our research into 4:
A literature review of academic works
A study of trends and future reports
An online cultural probe
Precedents and analogous research
The Literature review covered a number of different publications, covering the topics of:
Conspiracy Theories
The Post-Truth Era
Moral Panics
Social Fact
Propaganda
Mental Health
AI Decision Making
The concepts of these books and papers were condensed into an annotated bibliography.
Literature Review
The trends and futures reports threw up a few concepts that were key to our final experience.
Brandalism: Using vandalism of the artifacts of well known brands to highlight their missteps and demand they do a better job.
Real Time Synthetic Media to Distort the Truth: Through campaigns of disinformation, could destabilize societies at a vast scale.
Increasing credibility of conspiracy theories: As conspiracy theorists now have better access to tools to create credible and realistic media, it becomes harder for people to sort the fact from the fiction.
Trends and Futures
The online cultural probe helped us identify what makes a conspiracy theory appealing to the masses
(Zaria Gorvett for BBC, 2020)
Convincing Culprits
Collective Anxieties
Tribalism
Uncertainty
Knowledge Gaps
Ulterior Motives
We then used this to study recent conspiracy theories and understand their effectiveness and rapid online spread, as well as the influence they can have on society.
Online Cultural Probe
We finally identified Precedents and Analogues to draw inspiration from for our project:
Precedents:
Birds Aren’t Real (artificial conspiracy theory)
Qanon (real conspiracy theory)
Analogues:
China Social Credit System
Mexican Morning Brief (La Mañanera)
FactCheck Initiative Japan
Technological Developments:
Deepfakes
Dall-e / Midjourney
Precedents and analogous research
3. Synthesize findings and narrow down our topic
Our research revealed the blurring line between fact and fiction, intensified by social media and generative AI advancements. COVID-19 confinement reduced diverse interactions. This drove us to create an immersive experience prompting audiences to question their understanding of truth and information handling.
We aimed for a unique encounter challenging conventions, presenting non-human beliefs. Prototyping was crucial to gauge audience reactions to our topic and non-human perspectives before finalizing the exhibition scenario.
4. Initial prototype - Fact check AI calibration test
In our initial prototype, we collaboratively developed a fact-checking AI system, involving the audience in its training. We presented opposing testimonials, inviting discussions to determine credibility. Non-human testimonials were introduced, well-received by the audience. However, the challenge emerged when participants struggled to make decisions due to insufficient context and information. This highlighted the need to enhance context provision to facilitate informed decision-making in our immersive exhibit.
5. Imagine futures and develop scenarios
Once we better understood the level of willingness from our audience to engage with us, we started looking for a topic that was engaging enough, plausible enough and familiar enough that they would interact accordingly with it. We developed a script with the potential evidence touch-points and when they would be revealed to the audience to increase engagement. To increase our chances of confusion and plausible belief of the scenario, we asked specific classmates to support our idea and challenge others denial of it.
The rest of our efforts were directed at world building ideas that would immerse our audience into believing that the consequences of their voting would be handled by an organization that could affect a daily aspect of their lives.