Connect with us

Features

Possible role of Artificial Intelligence in elections

Published

on

Image courtesy the USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy

by Prof. Janendra De Costa,

University of Peradeniya
(janendrad@gmail.com).

Elections are an essential component of a functioning democracy. It is presidential election time in the US as it is in Sri Lanka. This week, the candidate of the Republican Party and the former President, Donald Trump alleged that the campaign of Kamala Harris, the candidate of the Democratic Party and the current Vice-President, had falsely inflated the crowd size (reported to be around 15,000) at the Detroit Airport when she arrived there for an election rally in the State of Michigan, by using artificial intelligence (AI) tools. However, the media quickly fact-checked the allegation using video footage and on-site reporters and reported that the allegation was false and that the reported crowd size was true. This incident brings into sharp focus the role of AI in contemporary elections, which is raising concerns in many parts of the world, especially in those countries which are due to hold elections in the near future. It is estimated that about four billion people will go to the polls during this year.

Like any good technology, AI is a powerful tool, which can be used for the good as well as for the bad. Recently, there have been a few articles, and an editorial, in the prestigious science journal Nature on how the use of AI could influence the outcome of elections. For example, the subtle use of AI on images (softfakes) can alter the expressions of a candidate to make him/her less or more likeable to the voters. AI can generate images of promised infrastructure projects which appeal to the perceived expectations of the electorate. Less subtle use of AI (deepfakes) could generate authentic-looking speeches, videos and quotes by election campaigns, often distributed widely via social media, to attract or dissuade voters from voting for a particular candidate. Campaign content disseminated using social media platforms is particularly vulnerable to AI-generated fake news and misinformation, especially when the voters are less-knowledgeable about such things. This is particularly true in countries such as Sri Lanka and India, where a substantial percentage of the voters are from remote rural areas. While these voters may have access to social media platforms such as WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok and X (former Twitter), they would not, in all probability, be able to distinguish between AI-generated fake or altered content and genuine, authentic content.

Fact-checking of speeches made during election rallies, debates and discussions is not strong in countries such as Sri Lanka as it is in countries such as the US. When the mechanisms for independent verification are weak, the tendency for the politicians to make false claims, either about their own achievements or about blunders and shortcomings of their opponents, increases. This means that a strong ‘free’ and ‘independent’ media is an essential requirement for a democracy to function effectively. A mature democracy requires that people are given correct facts and figures by politicians who seek their mandate for the people to make informed decisions. Even with a strong media, in past elections in the US, voters have been swayed and outcomes have been decided by not-so-accurate statements from candidates and their campaigns on their rivals. What chance would the voters in a country like Sri Lanka, where the media is not so strong and fact-checking politicians’ statements and campaign content is weak to non-existent, have in recognizing AI-generated misinformation and fakes from authentic content? Even when misinformation and fake news are recognised for what they are, the intended damage may have been done. Recognizing the AI-generated fakes often requires technical know-how which may be lacking among a large section of the media. When such content is spread through social media, there are very few barriers, checks and balances in the system to prevent their damage. Apart from resorting to costly and lengthy litigation, there are few mechanisms of accountability to punish the wrong doers.

One of the few scientific studies which quantified the prevalence of AI misinformation in the recently held elections in India was published a few weeks ago in Nature and can be accessed at https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01588-2.

When trying to obtain a scientifically valid assessment of the extent of AI-generated misinformation and its possible impact, the researchers are faced with three major challenges. First and foremost, the technical know-how to identify AI-generated or altered content is still in its infancy. Currently, the researchers must manually look for known signs and discrepancies that are characteristic of AI intervention. Secondly, quantifying the percentage of fake content out of the total disseminated content requires examination of messages which are protected by privacy laws and restrictions. Therefore, the researchers must depend on users who volunteer to donate their social media content to be used as data for research purposes. The third challenge is assessing the extent to which fake content has swayed the opinions and perceptions of their receivers. The study published in Nature on 06 June 2024 examined 1,858 viral WhatsApp group messages (i.e. those that had been forwarded more than five times) received by a representative (in terms of age, religion and cast) sample of 500 voluntary users in the state of Uttar Pradesh during the three-month period prior to state elections in 2023 and found that only 1% of the examined messages contained clear evidence of AI intervention. It remained around the same value during the subsequent general election as well. While acknowledging that the problem may not be as widespread as previously thought, the researchers caution that this is a very limited study which may have underestimated the extent of the issue. The researchers further caution that AI technology continues to evolve rapidly so that detection of its intervention may become increasingly difficult, thus advocating increased and continued vigilance while developing counter measures. These include creating public awareness and capability to detect AI-generated content, especially among the inexperienced users, strategies to watermark such content and, most-importantly, investment in research and development to generate technological solutions so that countermeasures keep pace with the rapid development of AI technologies that could be used to spread seemingly authentic fake content and misinformation. Apart from the technological solutions and public institutional countermeasures, the media (both print and electronic) has a vital role to play in exposing fake content and misinformation, generated using AI as well as other methods, within the shortest possible time after its dissemination.

Suggested Reading:

What we do — and don’t — know about how misinformation spreads online. (Editorial) Nature 630, 7-8. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01618-z.

Chowdhury R (2023) AI-fuelled election campaigns are here — where are the rules? Nature 628, 237. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00995-9.

Ecker U et al. (2024) Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think. Nature 630, 29-32. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01587-3.

Garimella K, Chauchard S (2024) How prevalent is AI misinformation? What our studies in India show so far. Nature 630, 32-34. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01588-2.

(The author is currently based at the University of Florida, Gainesville, USA, and is a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka.)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

RuGoesWild: Taking science into the wild — and into the hearts of Sri Lankans

Published

on

Visiting Komodo

At a time when misinformation spreads so easily—especially online—there’s a need for scientists to step in and bring accurate, evidence-based knowledge to the public. This is exactly what Dr. Ruchira Somaweera is doing with RuGoesWild, a YouTube channel that brings the world of field biology to Sri Lankan audiences in Sinhala.

“One of my biggest motivations is to inspire the next generation,” says Dr. Somaweera. “I want young Sri Lankans to not only appreciate the amazing biodiversity we have here, but also to learn about how species are studied, protected, and understood in other parts of the world. By showing what’s happening elsewhere—from research in remote caves to marine conservation projects—I hope to broaden horizons and spark curiosity.”

Unlike many travel and wildlife channels that prioritise entertainment, RuGoesWild focuses on real science. “What sets RuGoesWild apart is its focus on wildlife field research, not tourism or sensationalised adventures,” he explains. “While many travel channels showcase nature in other parts of the world, few dig into the science behind it—and almost none do so in Sinhala. That’s the niche I aim to fill.”

Excerpts of the Interview

Q: Was there a specific moment or discovery in the field that deeply impacted you?

“There have been countless unforgettable moments in my 20-year career—catching my first King cobra, discovering deep-diving sea snakes, and many more,” Dr. Somaweera reflects. “But the most special moment was publishing a scientific paper with my 10-year-old son Rehan, making him one of the youngest authors of an international peer-reviewed paper. We discovered a unique interaction between octopi and some fish called ‘nuclear-forager following’. As both a dad and a scientist, that was an incredibly meaningful achievement.”

Saltwater crocodiles in Sundarbans in Bangladesh, the world’s largest mangrove

Q: Field biology often means long hours in challenging environments. What motivates you to keep going?

“Absolutely—field biology can be physically exhausting, mentally draining, and often dangerous,” he admits. “I’ve spent weeks working in some of the most remote parts of Australia where you can only access through a helicopter, and in the humid jungles of Borneo where insects are insane. But despite all that, what keeps me going is a deep sense of wonder and purpose. Some of the most rewarding moments come when you least expect them—a rare animal sighting, a new behavioural observation, or even just watching the sun rise over a pristine habitat.”

Q: How do you balance scientific rigour with making your work engaging and understandable?

“That balance is something I’m constantly navigating,” he says. “As a scientist, I’m trained to be precise and data-driven. But if we want the public to care about science, we have to make it accessible and relatable. I focus on the ‘why’ and ‘wow’—why something matters, and what makes it fascinating. Whether it’s a snake that glides between trees, a turtle that breathes through its backside, or a sea snake that hunts with a grouper, I try to bring out the quirky, mind-blowing parts that spark curiosity.”

Q: What are the biggest misconceptions about reptiles or field biology in Sri Lanka?

“One of the biggest misconceptions is that most reptiles—especially snakes—are dangerous and aggressive,” Dr. Somaweera explains. “In reality, the vast majority of snakes are non-venomous, and even the venomous ones won’t bite unless they feel threatened. Sadly, fear and myth often lead to unnecessary killing. With RuGoesWild, one of my goals is to change these perceptions—to show that reptiles are not monsters, but marvels of evolution.”

Q: What are the most pressing conservation issues in Sri Lanka today?

“Habitat loss is huge,” he emphasizes. “Natural areas are being cleared for housing, farming, and industry, which displaces wildlife. As people and animals get pushed into the same spaces, clashes happen—especially with elephants and monkeys. Pollution, overfishing, and invasive species also contribute to biodiversity loss.”

Manta Rays

Q: What role do local communities play in conservation, and how can scientists better collaborate with them?

“Local communities are absolutely vital,” he stresses. “They’re often the first to notice changes, and they carry traditional knowledge. Conservation only works when people feel involved and benefit from it. We need to move beyond lectures and surveys to real partnerships—sharing findings, involving locals in fieldwork, and even ensuring conservation makes economic sense to them through things like eco-tourism.”

Q: What’s missing in the way biology is taught in Sri Lanka?

“It’s still very exam-focused,” Dr. Somaweera says. “Students are taught to memorize facts rather than explore how the natural world works. We need to shift to real-world engagement. Imagine a student in Anuradhapura learning about ecosystems by observing a tank or a garden lizard, not just reading a diagram.”

Q: How important is it to communicate science in local languages?

“Hugely important,” he says. “Science in Sri Lanka often happens in English, which leaves many people out. But when I speak in Sinhala—whether in schools, villages, or online—the response is amazing. People connect, ask questions, and share their own observations. That’s why RuGoesWild is in Sinhala—it’s about making science belong to everyone.”

‘Crocodile work’ in northern Australia.

Q: What advice would you give to young Sri Lankans interested in field biology?

“Start now!” he urges. “You don’t need a degree to start observing nature. Volunteer, write, connect with mentors. And once you do pursue science professionally, remember that communication matters—get your work out there, build networks, and stay curious. Passion is what will carry you through the challenges.”

Q: Do you think YouTube and social media can shape public perception—or even influence policy?

“Absolutely,” he says. “These platforms give scientists a direct line to the public. When enough people care—about elephants, snakes, forests—that awareness builds momentum. Policymakers listen when the public demands change. Social media isn’t just outreach—it’s advocacy.”

by Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Benjy’s vision materalises … into Inner Vision

Published

on

Inner Vision: Only keyboardist to be finalised

Bassist Benjy Ranabahu is overjoyed as his version of having his own band (for the second time) is gradually taking shape.

When asked as to how the name Inner Vision cropped up, Benjy said that they were thinking of various names, and suggestions were made.

“Since we have a kind of a vision for music lovers, we decided to go with Inner Vision, and I guarantee that Inner Vision is going to be a band with a difference,” said Benjy.

In fact, he has already got a lineup, comprising musicians with years of experience in the music scene.

Benjy says he has now only to finalise the keyboardist, continue rehearsing, get their Inner Vision act together, and then boom into action.

“Various names have been suggested, where the keyboard section is concerned, and very soon we will pick the right guy to make our vision a reality.”

Inner Vision will line-up as follows…

Anton Fernando

Benjy Ranabahu:
Ready to give music
lovers a new vision

(Lead guitar/vocals): Having performed with several bands in the past, including The Gypsies, he has many years of experience and has also done the needful in Japan, Singapore, Dubai, the Maldives, Zambia, Korea, New Zealand, and the Middle East.

Lelum Ratnayake

(Drums/vocals): The son of the legendary Victor Ratnayake, Lelum has toured Italy, Norway, Japan, Australia, Zambia, Kuwait and Oman as a drummer and percussionist.

Viraj Cooray

(Guitar/vocals): Another musician with years of experience, having performed with several of our leading outfits. He says he is a musician with a boundless passion for creating unforgettable experiences, through music.

Nish Peiris

Nish Peiris: Extremely talented

(Female vocals): She began taking singing, seriously, nearly five years ago, when her mother, having heard her sing occasionally at home and loved her voice, got her involved in classes with Ayesha Sinhawansa. Her mom also made her join the Angel Chorus. “I had no idea I could sing until I joined Angle Chorus, which was the initial step in my career before I followed my passion.” Nish then joined Soul Sounds Academy, guided by Soundarie David. She is currently doing a degree in fashion marketing.

And … with Benjy Ranabahu at the helm, playing bass, Inner Vision is set to light up the entertainment scene – end May-early June, 2025.

Continue Reading

Features

Can Sri Lanka’s premature deindustrialisation be reversed?

Published

on

As politicians and economists continue to proclaim that the Sri Lankan economy has achieved ‘stability’ since the 2022 economic crisis, the country’s manufacturing sector seems to have not got the memo.

A few salient points need to be made in this context.

First, Sri Lankan manufacturing output has been experiencing a secular stagnation that predates external shocks, such as the pandemic and the Easter Attacks. According to national accounts data from UNIDO, manufacturing output in dollar terms has basically flatlined since 2012. Without a manufacturing engine at its core, it is no surprise that Sri Lanka has seen some of the lowest rates of economic growth during this period. (See graph)

Second, factory capacity utilisation still remains below pre-pandemic levels. Total capacity utilisation stood at 62% in 2024, compared to 81% in 2019. For wearing apparel, the country’s main manufactured export, capacity utilisation was at a meagre 58% in 2024, compared to 83% in 2019. Given the uncertainty Trump’s tariffs have cast on global trade, combined with the diminished consumer sentiment across the Global North, it is hard to imagine capacity utilisation recovering to pre-pandemic levels in the near future.

Third, new investment in manufacturing has been muted. From 2019 to 2024, only 26% of realised foreign investments in Board of Investment enterprises were in manufacturing. This indicates that foreign capital does not view the country as a desirable location for manufacturing investment. It also reflects a global trend – according to UNCTAD, 81% of new foreign investment projects, between 2020 and 2023, were in services.

Taken together, these features paint an alarming picture of the state of Sri Lankan manufacturing and prospects for longer-term growth.

What makes manufacturing so special?

A critical reader may ask at this point, “So what? Why is manufacturing so special?”

Political economists have long analysed the transformative nature of manufacturing and its unique ability to drive economic growth, generate technical innovation, and provide positive spillovers to other sectors. In the 1960s, Keynesian economist Nicholas Kaldor posited his famous three ‘growth laws, which argued for the ‘special place’ of manufacturing in economic development. More recently, research by UNIDO has found that 64% of growth episodes in the last 50 years were fuelled by the rapid development of the manufacturing sector.

Manufacturing profits provide the basis on which modern services thrive. London and New York could not have emerged as financial centres without the profits generated by industrial firms in Manchester and Detroit, respectively. Complex and high-end services, ranging from banking and insurance to legal advisory to logistics and transport, rely on institutional clients in industrial sectors. Meanwhile, consumer-facing services, such as retail and hospitality, depend on the middle-class wage base that an industrial economy provides.

Similarly, technologies generated in the manufacturing process can have massive impacts on raising the productivity of other sectors, such as agriculture and services. Indeed, in most OECD countries, manufacturing-oriented private firms are the biggest contributors to R&D spending – in the United States, 57% of business enterprise R&D spending is done by manufacturing firms; in China it is 80%.

It has become increasingly clear to both scholars and policymakers that national possession of industrial capacity is needed to retain advantages in higher value-added capabilities, such as design. This is because some of the most critical aspects of innovation are the ‘process innovations’ that are endemic to the production process itself. R&D cannot always be done in the comfort of an isolated lab, and even when it can, there are positive spillovers to having geographic proximity between scientists, skilled workers, and industrialists.

Produce or perish?

Sri Lanka exhibits the telltale signs of ‘premature deindustrialisation’. The term refers to the trend of underdeveloped countries experiencing a decline in manufacturing at levels of income much lower than what was experienced by countries that managed to break into high-income status.

Premature deindustrialisation afflicts a range of middle-income countries, including India, Brazil, and South Africa. It is generally associated with the inability of domestic manufacturing firms to diversify their activities, climb up the value chain, and compete internationally. Major bottlenecks include the lack of patient capital and skilled personnel to technologically upgrade and the difficulties of overcoming the market power of incumbents.

Reversing the trend of premature deindustrialisation requires selective industrial policy. This means direct intervention in the national division of labour in order to divert resources towards strategic sectors with positive spillovers. Good industrial policy requires a carrot-and-stick approach. Strategic manufacturing sectors must be made profitable, but incentives need to be conditional and based on strict performance criteria. Industrial can choose winners, but it has to be willing to let go of losers.

During the era of neoliberal globalisation, the importance of manufacturing was underplayed (or perhaps deliberately hidden). To some extent, knowledge of its importance was lost to policymakers. Karl Marx may have predicted this when, in Volume 2 of Das Kapital, he wrote that “All nations with a capitalist mode of production are, therefore, seized periodically by a feverish attempt to make money without the intervention of the process of production.”

Since the long depression brought about by the 2008 financial crisis, emphasis on manufacturing is making a comeback. This is most evident in the US ruling class’s panic over China’s rapid industrialisation, which has shifted the centre of gravity of the world economy towards Asia and threatened unipolar dominance by the US. In the Sri Lankan context, however, emphasis on manufacturing remains muted, especially among establishment academics and policy advisors who remain fixated on services.

Interestingly, between the Gotabaya Rajapaksa-led SLPP and the Anura Kumara Dissanayake-led NPP, there is continuity in terms of the emphasis on the slogan of a ‘production economy’ (nishpadana arthiakaya in Sinhala). Perhaps more populist than strictly academic, the continued resonance of the slogan reflects a deep-seated societal anxiety about Sri Lanka’s ability to survive as a sovereign entity in a world characterised by rapid technological change and the centralisation of capital.

Nationalist writer Kumaratunga Munidasa once said that “a country that does not innovate will not rise”. Amid the economic crises of the 1970s, former Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike popularised a pithier exhortation: “produce or perish”. Aside from their economic benefits, manufacturing capabilities are the pride of a nation, as they demonstrate skill and scientific knowledge, a command over nature, and the ability to mobilise and coordinate people towards the construction of modern wonders. In short, it is hard to speak of real sovereignty without modern industry.

(Shiran Illanperuma is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and a co-Editor of Wenhua Zongheng: A Journal of Contemporary Chinese Thought. He is also a co-Convenor of the Asia Progress Forum, which can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com).

By Shiran Illanperuma

Continue Reading

Trending