At a recent graduation ceremony, a high school educator made an ironic comment about students never using AI chatbots when working on assignments. Knowing that was untrue, people in the theatre smiled.

When AI is relied upon, the use of the technology is usually apparent. AI is not good at recognizing nuances of issues. Information provided might be incorrect, incomplete, misleading or biased. Alternatively, it might be accurate and responsive. Results depend on the training given computers that generate output. But it also depends on the motives of the humans who manage that training.

With use of AI growing, all news analysts and reporters are affected. According to researchers at Northwestern University, the USA lost one-third of its newspapers and two-thirds of its newspaper journalists since 2005. Smart phones, high speed Internet, social media, and other factors have changed the corporate media landscape. Now, artificial intelligence is replacing professional journalists.

In the past few decades, media ownership shifted radically. Newspapers and broadcasters were once mostly operated by local owners. That shifted to regional and national ownership and now, a handful of multinational technology firms are exercising greater control over information channels.

Ownership concentration has led to a relatively small group of wealthy individuals exercising great control over media operations. Does that affect content? I conclude it does. Owners employ people prepared to reflect corporate goals. That control will tighten as AI replaces humans in news rooms.

Here are partial examples of the response offered by two information robots:

The reality is that media filters reality instead of reflecting it. In authoritarian regimes, control of communication has always been a primary objective. News is shaped to further the interests of the powerful. The same can be said in corporatocracies.

Shaping the news will be more problematic as the use of artificial intelligence expands. That is not good for social democracy.