A research paper was recently floated around from an institute at Harvard. It made its way around several circles until it landed in the hands of two of the cited professors. Neither of whom had ever heard of the paper. Never participated in the research or the writing of the paper. And the Harvard Institute mentioned? Never existed.
Our society relies on various credibility markers that have long been a staple for identifying expertise, experience, or merit. This is true at the societal level, organizational level, and individual level.
What happens when these credibility markers become eroded by the inability of people to discern authenticity from fabrication, speculation, or opinion?
Social media created platforms where anyone who was engaging enough could build a following and provide advice and recommendations that were taken as factual, with only charisma and opinion as the baseline.
The World Economic Forum's Global Risks Report ranked misinformation and disinformation among the top two global risks for three consecutive years. The line between fact and opinion is rapidly eroding.
AI is already fueling this collapse further because AI output scales faster than our verification infrastructure.
We are at an inflection point where we need to decide, as a society, the difference between access and accountability. The difference between actual merit and a good prompt.
Because here is the uncomfortable truth: How can we claim to operate a meritocracy if the markers of merit are completely lost in the noise?
AI is not inherently good or bad, but the rules of engagement are ours to shape. How do we create credibility validators that require active verification, not passive assumption?
We must decide. Because our people systems depend on it.