Bring on the AI overlords: from a content marketer
Artificial intelligence (AI). Just saying the words invokes visions of an apocalyptic future teeming with deadly machines like The Terminator or even software like The Matrix’s Agent Smith. At least that’s the dystopia the scaremongers are peddling. If the latest hype is anything to go by, AI will not only change life on earth as we know it, it will probably take your job too.
As an editor, content marketer and millennial, it appears my head is on the chopping block. Gartner predicts that by 2018, 20 per cent of business content will be authored by machines, and many are speculating that journalists will cease to exist. Add Elon Musk comparing AI to a demon, and even I’m spooked.
But I won’t pack up my desk just yet. Here’s why.
We’re surrounded by AI
Let’s be honest: this is nothing new. Artificial intelligence, machine learning and automation have been around for quite a while, and we’ve all been targeted by Facebook’s AI-applied targeted advertising and subject to Google AdWords’ AI-powered, automated bidding for years.
Your top picks on Netflix? AI technology fuels its recommendation engine. Apple’s personal assistant, Siri? She’s machine learning to better predict, understand and answer your questions. Google? Depends on AI to rank your search results.
But the machines haven’t taken over yet. Despite it trickling into everyday life, AI is still in its infancy. Instead of conjuring images of alien robots, we should really think of the technology as a baby Bicentennial Man in nappies – waiting for us to teach it.
AI is growing up fast
To be useful for content marketing, AI needs a mammoth amount of fresh, structured data.
Its power lies in its ability to analyse large data sets to reveal patterns and trends. Feed it enough high-quality data and it will be able to predict share prices or a human’s lifespan and, in some cases, even write content.
Natural language generation (NLG) is a type of AI software capable of producing coherent, readable text. NLG robo-journalists are already creating basic sports content and corporate earnings reports. But, as smart as it is, NLG isn’t truly independent – it needs very specific data sets and templates before it can write, and it can’t create anything genuinely new.
Still, that doesn’t mean we can’t use the technology. In the realm of content marketing, AI can gather, sort and make sense of oceans of data – something the industry is swimming in.
AI: Spotting trends, making predictions
Ask any marketer and they’ll tell you they’re ‘data driven’.
Sure, we’re data driven. We look at engagement metrics to tell us what’s working, and change things accordingly to make them work better and inform future decisions. But it’s generally retrospective.
A lot of what we do is still based on instinct. We still speak to real people. We still search online to understand what people are asking. We still study search volumes.
What we need is the ability to predict something before it needs to be changed. This is where the opportunity for AI is in content marketing right now.
Exciting stuff for a content marketer working in a media and data intelligence business. We’re already using our own AI to process seven million news items every day, at a rate of 234 stories per second.
With that much data, our software can make strong recommendations about what type of content we should be creating, and for whom. As it evolves (and learns), it should be able to spot trends and patterns early, informing communications strategies and helping businesses to maximise opportunity and minimise risk.
Humans and AI, living together
AI and predictive analytics will help content marketers understand who they should be talking to and what they should be saying, but it’s up to us to create the content.
AI relies on human data and intelligence to function and learn. At least for now, this is where its limitations lie.
Humans are still needed to create original work that connects with its audience at an emotional level. To completely replace a writer or content marketer, AI would need to have an opinion, think abstractly, be curious and show emotion.
So, while your inbox might be full of propaganda alluding to our impending cyberdoom, we’re not there yet.
However, we shouldn’t be naïve, as the way we work is being transformed. To stay in the game, we should spearhead the change rather than hiding in the corner.
I for one welcome working with our new robot overlords, and I urge you all to join me. As the machine said, “Come with me if you want to live.”
Disclaimer: This article was not written by a robot.
Loren is an experienced marketing professional who translates data and insights using Isentia solutions into trends and research, bringing clients closer to the benefits of audience intelligence. Loren thrives on introducing the groundbreaking ways in which data and insights can help a brand or organisation, enabling them to exceed their strategic objectives and goals.
The immediate challenge is not killer robots, its job replacement. If individuals are automated out of jobs, the future for society is bleak.
Computers can already take orders, fold clothes and even drive cars, but where to from here?
The robots are coming. Although often spoken of in future tense, the truth is machine learning is well and truly here. Without realising, consumers interact with ‘smart’ technology at almost every touch point; from robotic vacuums to facial recognition technology, artificial intelligence (AI) is helping to complete tasks faster, cheaper and – sometimes - more effectively than ever before.
In an economy that’s driven by speed and efficiency, it should come as no surprise that a computer’s ability to communicate at a trillion bits per second is favoured above the human capability of about 10 bits.
McKinsey recently reported that 40 per cent of work tasks can be automated using existing technology, prompting everyone from factory workers to lawyers and accountants to consider the threat of being replaced by robots as not just inevitable, but imminent.
For technologists, we are witnessing first-hand how this emerging field is transforming the companies we work for.
In my work at Isentia, we use machine learning to process seven million news items each day. Not long ago this was a task relegated performed solely by humans with the mind-numbing task of flipping through newspapers in search of stories that might relate to a client.
We have a duty to empower those around us to learn everything they can about what their job may evolve into in order to become the very best man-machine partner possible.
Today, machines trawl video, audio and digital content across over 5,500 new sites at a rate of 234 stories per second and present meaningful summaries to clients in real-time.
Whether a story breaks on Twitter and then spills across news platforms and onto television and radio, machine learning can track and analyse how a story evolves with 99 per cent accuracy.
While AI is revolutionising the way that we work, the impact is far greater for those in the tech industry.
In our mission to develop software that can learn complex problems without needing to be taught how, the success of the AI industry ultimately comes down to technology professionals: our ability to automate, and the pace at which we expand the field of machine learning.
With an annual growth rate of 19.7 per cent percent (predicted to be worth $15.3 billion by 2019), it’s safe to say our foot is well and truly on the pedal. While this relies greatly on our technical capabilities, it is something that challenges many of us ethically: what set of values should AI be aligned with?
Two of the greatest technologists of our times, Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking, have spoken about both the potential benefit and the harm that an AI arms race could deliver. An eradication of disease is not unfathomable, but nor is a threat to humanity. They hold grave concerns as to whether or not robots can be controlled against misuse or malfunction.
While thought provoking, the immediate challenge is not killer robots, it’s job replacement. Employment may not seem like an ethical problem, but if individuals are automated out of jobs, the future for society is bleak.
While the phrase ‘Thank God it’s Friday’ has forged its way into the 9-to-5 vernacular, for most people, jobs create a huge sense of personal and professional satisfaction… not to mention a means to pay bills.
An apocalypse might be somewhat melodramatic, however I do agree that it is important to consider just how closely we should merge biological and digital intelligence.
Computers can already take orders, fold clothes and even drive cars, but where to from here? It’s both exciting and terrifying. The last time we experienced a revolution like this was in the early 1900s when cars, telephones and the airplane all emerged at once.
Contrary to the hype, there lies an enormous opportunity for humans to work with artificial intelligence, not be replaced by it.
Make no mistake: at some level every job can be carried out by a robot. But there are certain jobs, particularly in technology, that require decision making, planning or coding software.
While computers do a brilliant job of executing well-defined activities - such as telling us the fastest route to get from home to work - it is safe to say that humans are an essential component of goal setting, interpreting results, humour, sarcasm and implementing common sense checks.
The most difficult jobs to automate are those that involve managing and developing people. While in this industry most of our jobs are safe (for now), we should heed the advice of Musk and Hawkings and protect those outside our field by proceeding with caution. How then to facilitate human and robots working together harmoniously without the workforce morphing into cyborgs? The secret is to not sail out farther we can row back.
As technologists, we also have a duty to empower those around us to learn everything they can about what their job may evolve into in order to become the very best man-machine partner possible. It's the best, and most ethical, way to prepare for the inevitable advent of AI.
First publish in CIO New Zealand
Andrea Walsh, CIO
"
["post_title"]=>
string(39) "It's time to slow down the AI arms race"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(92) "Computers can already take orders, fold clothes and even drive cars, but where to from here?"
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "publish"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(38) "its-time-to-slow-down-the-ai-arms-race"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2019-06-26 01:01:55"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2019-06-26 01:01:55"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(0)
["guid"]=>
string(43) "https://isentiastaging.wpengine.com/?p=1829"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(0) ""
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
}
Blog
It’s time to slow down the AI arms race
Computers can already take orders, fold clothes and even drive cars, but where to from here?
The biggest influence on public perception of the 2025 election campaign was not policy. It was identity, culture wars, and a growing fear of Australia 'becoming America'. What began as a focus on easing the cost of living quickly widened into a broader debate about national identity. Media coverage and social media feeds revealed a tug of war. On one side was policy messaging. On the other, gaining considerable ground, were culture and identity narratives fuelled by anxiety over external influence.
At the start of the election cycle in early March, news coverage centred on cost of living pressures and tax cuts. The Labor government's budget announcement and the Liberal Party’s response cemented the agenda, with topics like supermarket price gouging, fuel excises, and nuclear energy proposals striking a chord with voters. Early discussion on social media showed a clear focus on making life more affordable for families. But in the background, frustration around Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs and concerns about Australia–U.S. relations began to surface. Peter Dutton’s early promise to cut 40,000 public service jobs and push for a return to office work further fuelled comparisons between Dutton and Trump among Australian audiences.
As the election cycle progressed, international events and conflicts moved to the forefront. Trump’s presence in global headlines alongside Canada's similarly timed election, intensified comparisons between Australian and Canadian public attitudes toward American influence. Media narratives shifted from domestic cost-of-living concerns to broader conversations about defending the Australian way of life and protecting national interests particularly in education, reshaping the battleground on which voters made their decisions.
On March 28, coverage and discussion spiked as Anthony Albanese officially announced the election date. Earlier, on March 10, a surge in conversation centred on new polling that suggested a potential hung parliament, sharpening media focus on Labor. Albanese’s appearance on Today, where he responded to frustrations about delayed campaigning with, “We’re just about helping people, because that’s what people expect,” reinforced his image as a community-focused leader and contrasted with how past prime ministers were criticised during disasters. Meanwhile, Peter Dutton’s social media attention rose on April 12, as reports surfaced of his opponent Ali France leading in Dickson while a local tent encampment was demolished by Moreton Bay Council. Dutton, campaigning in Perth during the demolition, attracted criticism. A few days later, a compilation of clips linking Dutton to Donald Trump circulated widely. These moments highlighted the distinct leadership styles that shaped voter perceptions throughout the campaign.
Although Labor drew the most attention overall, Dutton and the Liberals gained momentum across social media. The Liberal Party’s early use of trends, AI tools, and memes attracted conversation, but the involvement of influencers and podcasts proved polarising. Coverage also highlighted a generational divide, with young women leaning left and young men leaning right. Influencers played a key role in shaping these dynamics, from Albanese’s Happy Hour podcast appearance on March 26, where his “delulu with no solulu” challenge dominated news cycles, to Dutton’s interview on Sam Fricker’s podcast aimed at young male voters. As the campaign progressed, news increasingly focused on character attacks and gaffes at the expense of policy debate. Issues like housing, supermarket competition, HECS relief, and energy bills remained core to party platforms, but many audiences were drawn into yarns covering personality clashes and culture wars.
The most shared news items from the beginning of the campaign to recently underline this shift of attention to cultural conflict. Posts about the mobilisation of Muslim voters around Gaza, criticism of Liberal candidates campaigning in military uniforms, warnings about public service job cuts, and debates over the political leanings of young male voters all reveal how specific cultural flashpoints and niche group appeals dominated discussion. Instead of broad policy debates, election discourse was fragmented into controversies that inflamed identity-driven tensions, polarised audiences, and heightened distrust.
Whether leaders spoke about getting Australia back on track, building a better Australia, or even making Australia great again, these slogans signalled clear messages to voters. More often than not, the public expressed a desire to distance Australia from the United States, particularly in defending healthcare and education systems that set Australia apart. Early in the campaign, when a journalist suggested Anthony Albanese’s use of "build back better" echoed Joe Biden’s slogan, the comment was quickly dismissed. Though not officially endorsed, the slogan’s use by Jacinta Price and Clive Palmerquickly eclipsed party lines, fuelling memes and comparisons to US Republicans across social media. This did little to help the Liberals distance their official slogan, 'Get Australia back on track,' from US political parallels. As Trump’s influence became a talking point, glimpses of Trump-style messaging were eagerly picked up by news outlets and social media alike, often overshadowing Labor’s campaign messaging and limiting its cut-through.
As the campaign unfolded, it became harder to separate policy from personality or promises from the cultural narratives surrounding them. Media and social media attention did more than reflect public interest. They helped shape it, steering the election conversation toward identity, values, and questions about Australia's place in a changing world. Whether that influence outweighed policy in swaying voters is still up for debate, but it clearly changed how the campaign was seen, shared, and remembered.
Did culture wars cut through more than policy on the election trail?
The biggest influence on public perception of the 2025 election campaign was not policy. It was identity, culture wars, and a growing fear of Australia ‘becoming America’. What began as a focus on easing the cost of living quickly widened into a broader debate about national identity. Media coverage and social media feeds revealed a […]
With social media platforms becoming central to political engagement, figures like Abbie Chatfield, Friendlyjordies, and The Juice Media are amplifying progressive causes and challenging traditional political narratives. But how significant is their impact? Are they genuinely influencing the election conversation, or is their influence more about their ability to capture attention and drive engagement? This evolving trend raises important questions about the role of influencers in modern elections and how they are reshaping the way political messages are communicated to younger, digital-savvy voters.
As the 2025 Australian federal election nears, influencer involvement has gained attention, with social media leading the charge while news coverage initially lagged. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton are tapping influencers to connect with younger voters—Albanese engages with Abbie Chatfield’s audience through values-driven storytelling, while Dutton targets young men with Sam Fricker's relatable podcasts. This reflects a broader shift from traditional media to platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Journalists are increasingly covering these influencer-driven moments, often focusing on the viral spread and political fallout. For instance, a viral February 13 video from an Israeli influencer accusing two NSW nurses of hateful comments dominated Australia’s news cycle, prompting swift political reactions. Coverage generally focuses on political responses, not the influencers themselves. This trend was also seen with Greens Leader Adam Bandt’s DJ event in Melbourne, where media noted his attempt to engage younger voters. The Australian Electoral Commission cleared Chatfield’s posts featuring Albanese and Bandt, highlighting the growing regulation of influencer political content. This focus towards viral moments over policy discussions raises questions about the impact on undecided voters and the evolving role of journalists in political engagement.
Influencers like Abbie Chatfield, The Juice Media, and Friendlyjordies are becoming central to the election rhetoric ahead of the 2025 Australian federal election. Chatfield, who faced scrutiny from the AEC, used her platform to rally support for the Greens, positioning herself against what she described as a Liberal media strategy to discredit influencers. Her posts, particularly defending her political involvement, have garnered strong support, with hashtags like #abbieisinnocent and #freeabbie dominating her comment sections. In contrast, some critics dismiss her political role, questioning her credibility. The Juice Media, known for its sarcastic takes on government policy, continues to challenge political narratives with irreverent content, resonating with younger, disillusioned voters. However, their approach also faces backlash from those who see it as too cynical or divisive. Similarly, Friendlyjordies critiques both major parties, particularly Labor’s stance on progressive issues, while encouraging followers to unite against corporate greed. His platform sparks heated debates, igniting both support and criticism.
Overall, these influencers are becoming polarising figures, amplifying political engagement while intensifying the ideological divide on social media, ultimately shaping the growing influence of social media figures in the election discourse.
Chatfield, a vocal supporter of progressive causes like Palestinian liberation and women's rights, has gained a strong following but faces criticism for oversimplifying political issues and for her perceived naivety, especially regarding preferential voting. Ferguson, who critiques colonialism and supports Palestinian liberation, is praised by supporters but criticised for lacking depth in her activism, with some accusing her of ignoring intersectionality. Friendlyjordies, known for satirical commentary, is admired for calling out political corruption, but his critics accuse him of bias towards Labor and oversimplifying complex issues. The Juice Media, using sarcasm to critique government policies, resonates with disillusioned young voters but alienates others who find their approach too cynical. These influencers contribute to a growing divide in Australian politics, mobilising progressive movements while deepening ideological rifts, as their content both challenges traditional politics and fuels polarisation.
Key issues like defence, the cost of living, and education are dominating political discourse and social media conversations. Global events, including Trump’s influence on international relations and trade, have sparked strong reactions, with Albanese facing backlash over Australia’s stance on Gaza and its defence ties with Israel. Meanwhile, Dutton’s comments on Ambassador Kevin Rudd and allegations of election interference have stirred tensions. On social media, debates over defence—highlighted by Indonesia’s denial of Russia’s military presence near Darwin—and cost of living concerns are intensifying. Education remains a key point of contrast, with Albanese’s Free TAFE policy gaining support while Dutton faces criticism for prioritising fossil fuel subsidies. Influencers are driving much of this engagement, but their role in amplifying already polarised narratives raises questions about whether they are truly reflecting voters’ concerns or deepening divides as the election approaches.
These conversations play out against a landscape in which social and news media have different - but overlapping - priorities. They’re driving debates on everything from education and nuclear energy to Trump-style politics and renewable energy. With the 2025 federal election on the horizon, stories sparked by creators — whether through critique, leaks, or commentary — are becoming part of the political media mix. It’s a shift that’s unfolding in real time, and one that’s reshaping how narratives break, spread, and gain momentum. But as these voices grow louder, one thing is clear: Are they truly amplifying the concerns of everyday Australians, or are they pushing further divides in a landscape already ripe with fragmentation?
The rise of influencers in the 2025 Australian federal election landscape
With social media platforms becoming central to political engagement, figures like Abbie Chatfield, Friendlyjordies, and The Juice Media are amplifying progressive causes and challenging traditional political narratives. But how significant is their impact? Are they genuinely influencing the election conversation, or is their influence more about their ability to capture attention and drive engagement? This […]
In Singapore, the rise of podcasting has shifted from entertainment and lifestyle into a new arena – public discourse and politics. As the 2025 General Election draws near, podcasters are making waves across online news and social media. To kick things off, we used Narrative AI, the first search engine for public opinion, to identify how large the global narrative on podcasts and their influence on audiences is in the last 6 months, using data from X.
We subsequently narrowed the focus of this global trend to Singapore and analysed on Pulsar TRAC more than 7k mentions across platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, TikTok, podcasts, Online News, blogs and forums to understand where the discourse is coming from, which channels are capturing the podcasters’ content and how audiences are responding to this content.
Mentions of podcasts in news and social media are growing
Social media is where the larger chunk of podcast conversation is taking place, specifically those episodes that feature a political figure, journalist or those that include healthcare-related discussions. The audiences that engage with these videos, majority being on YouTube, search for political credibility that resonates with them. Young Singaporeans watching these podcasts expect to see leaders who don’t just uphold the image of being a politician, but also someone who is grounded and trustworthy.
Youth and politicians' lives dominate podcast narratives
The audiences that consume these podcasts the most are young Singaporeans looking to participate in the conversation as much as they can. These audiences are being more proactive than ever.
With younger voters consuming media differently, these appearances are efforts by political candidates to connect with the public. Lawrence Wong, Josephine Teo, Indranee Rajah, and Desmond Tan, have used podcasts to communicate directly with the public – sidestepping traditional media filters.
Top podcasters on election-related content
When we focus on who the most mentioned podcasters around election content are, the Straits Times’ podcasts, the Daily Ketchup and Yah Lah BUT emerge on top. These podcasts have figured that the most discourse happens around content that’s either educational or controversial around elections. The public is actively responding to political content shared via podcasts, particularly those by The Straits Times and independent shows like Yah Lah BUT.
Satire and irony are key strategies to make politics palatable, especially for younger, digital-native audiences. The Daily Ketchup and Yah Lah BUT are blending serious topics like the GE2025, party agendas, healthcare, and opposition voices with humour that make them almost meme-worthy. Posts such as “PAP really said: ‘Trust me, bro’” TikTok clips show that these are genuinely made for content to go viral while retaining serious undertones too.
What’s interesting to note is that The Common Folks, with content in Malay and Indonesian, is tapping into a cross-border Southeast Asian audience and has some of the highest engagement on its content. Local slang, cultural jokes, and casual festive content like Raya greetings and songkok jokes have generated thousands of views, at times outperforming English-language political pods. This suggests a large, under-acknowledged appetite for vernacular podcast content that has a blend of humour and relatability.
Podcasts are no longer just background noise – they’re becoming one of the most relevant ways Singaporeans engage with politics. With high engagement on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, a wide spread of topics from youth issues to party politics, and growing presence in both mainstream and social media, podcasters are carving out a key role in shaping the GE 2025 conversation.
What is making podcasts stand out ahead of the Singapore GE2025?
In Singapore, the rise of podcasting has shifted from entertainment and lifestyle into a new arena – public discourse and politics. As the 2025 General Election draws near, podcasters are making waves across online news and social media. To kick things off, we used Narrative AI, the first search engine for public opinion, to identify […]
