Madonna’s Material Girl lyric “living in a material world” could be reworded to “living in a tabloid world.” We all have become subject matter experts by virtue of our ability to post our views on any of a million social media platforms.
Truth is now measured by popularity. Traditional confirmation sources are frowned upon. Government research reports are immediately discounted. Private research efforts are immediately labeled biased. Print media has pared down editorial staffs concluding reporters and editors are unnecessary and expensive. News comes to you instantly preselected and sorted by automated systems of unknown complexity and skill.
I was watching a television news interview of a prominent actor winning an award. The topic somehow got onto how many people have passports in the U.S. The number quoted seemed inflated, so I figured it was easy to find quickly on my smartphone. I queried an AI tool and it gave me a different number cited from a popular national U.S. newspaper.
It bothered me that AI didn’t cite an actual original source, but rather the newspaper. I checked directly with the government agency that tracks this data. The newspaper hadn’t seemed to do that simple fact check either. The AI tool simply relied on the newspaper and assumed it was accurate. The interviewer didn’t bother to fact check the actor’s comments either. Those who heard the actor most probably internalized the comment with the wrong number. They likely will repeat this misinformation to their friends in future conversations.
It took me two clicks to find this number from the U.S. State Department, you know, the group directly responsible for issuing passports. Why the AI tool didn’t look there first is beyond me. Why the newspaper didn’t do that is beyond me too.
First impressions of information are often all people get, that is why rare retractions have such a limited effect. As a case study, the word nuclear was mispronounced as “nucular” by a 1950s president and that mispronunciation is still rampant today.
A Civil War quote cited frequently applies to public statements, “Get there first with the most.” Media coverage is generally “most” at the first occurrence, the first interview, etc. Once a comment is out there, few will bother to correct themselves. Experts consulted later — the talking heads so popular in media and print — rarely get the same level of coverage. Retractions are very rare.
We seem to just not care enough to provide factual information or to correct misstatements. AI is going to just make this worse; no one seems to check AI as it emerges as an omniscient source of information.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has discovered, if I can borrow a term from Agent Mulder in the X-Files, that “the misinformation is out there.” In December 2024, CARB published an assessment Myths vs. Fact – Advanced Clean Trucks. It summarizes nine misstatements commonly made about the ACT rule. Is this shouting at the wind? Do people even care that they might be expounding myths? Are there things CARB left out? Who cares, right?
The trouble with belief systems is that once you have one you are very unlikely to be swayed by rational arguments. Truths, or alternative truths, have become the norm. If everyone’s opinion is weighed on the scale of popularity, what do facts have to do with it?
The Environmental Defense Fund just published a report U.S. Electric Vehicle Manufacturing Investments and Jobs Turning Investment into Action. The report documents which states and congressional districts have investments in manufacturing electric vehicles (EVs) of all sizes, EV components, EV batteries, EV battery components, and EV battery recycling.
Investment: Over the last 10 years, manufacturers have announced $198 billion in concrete investment in U.S. EV and EV battery manufacturing facilities. Federal policies have dramatically expanded and accelerated these investments: 65% of announced EV investments have occurred since passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022 and 83% have occurred in the last three years since passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).
The report goes on to document jobs being created from these investments.
Jobs: Supported by these investments, over the last 10 years, manufacturers have announced 194,600 new U.S. EV-related jobs. Federal investments and incentives that are specifically designed to onshore the EV manufacturing supply chain have likewise substantially expanded and accelerated new job announcements. Of all the EV jobs announced since 2015, 56% were announced since the passage of the IRA in August 2022 and 75% were announced since the passage of the BIL in November 2021. Announced EV and battery manufacturing also could generate up to 826,000 additional jobs in indirect/secondary employment.
What I think is particularly interesting is where those investments have been made. Ten states with the highest investment are Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada, South Carolina, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Illinois. The report would be remiss if it didn’t also note the political flavor of those states.
Congressional Districts: Over 83% of the announced EV manufacturing investment is in districts held by Republican representatives. Twenty-five Congressional districts account for more than 70% of the announced investments with the GOP representing 22 of those districts.
California typically gets pilloried for its leading-edge approach to decarbonizing freight transportation. Perhaps there is more to the story than California as the EDF report finds. Will people care? Do details matter? Do jobs and investments in decarbonization matter?
Belief systems are based on faith. Facts are often irrelevant, perhaps even contentious as they question the very heart of faith. Are EV sales faltering? Numbers don’t seem to matter, facts that sales worldwide and nationally have been increasing don’t seem to matter. Personal experience seeing these vehicles in your neighborhood does not seem to matter. If your belief system says EVs are not fairing well, then that’s what it is. If your belief system says that EVs are worse for the environment than diesels, so be it. It doesn’t matter what reports, testing or analysis is out there.
You have to pick the fights you can win. I think factual information has lost the war. We have chosen to live in a tabloid world where truth is measured by popularity or by advertising dollars.
It begs the question why go to school? Why have universities, research centers, national laboratories? Why bother to peer review scientific reports? If facts do not matter, think of all the money and time that can be saved. We can repurpose all those wasted resources. AI will do it all for us anyway. Doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong, it’s whether or not it’s popular that matters.
George Orwell’s book 1984 had a fairly bleak take on the future when it came out in 1949. He and his audience had the shared experience of World War II to help guide them and the experiences of the fledgling Cold War. In the U.S today, few people have that first-hand experience to influence their belief systems — that historic decade heavily influenced by propaganda. Some people today even question if any of the 1940s experiences really happened. Such is the state of fact finding in the modern world.
I have one question to those disparaging the decarbonization efforts of groups like CARB and EDF. What if the decarbonization vision of the future is wrong? What if the opponents of decarbonization are wrong? Which way would you rather err?
Weather predictions, stock market predictions, and more have a nasty habit of being proven out by reality in time. So too will opinions on decarbonizing commercial transportation.
