The Great Confusion: A Theoretical Take on the Impact of Technology Over the Next 5 Years

Advances in artificial intelligence are making it increasingly difficult to distinguish reality from fabrication. Deepfake video and audio technologies can now produce remarkably realistic fake content by using generative adversarial networks and other AI techniques . Researchers caution that these AI-generated forgeries are arriving at a time when it is “already becoming harder to separate fact from fiction” in our digitally saturated media environment . As a result, the line between truth and deceit in media, politics, and global events is blurring. For example, convincing deepfake videos of public figures can be created with relatively little effort, and only a small amount of source audio or video is needed to train an algorithm to mimic someone’s voice or appearance . This democratization of content manipulation means that anyone with malintent and modest resources could potentially fabricate news footage or speeches that are indistinguishable from reality.

The implications for deception are profound. Experts warn of a coming “climate of indeterminacy” in which information consumers struggle to discern truth, leading to collapsing trust in anything not experienced first-hand . Studies of synthetic media note that a glut of hyper-realistic fake content can produce a general sense of uncertainty and cynicism, where people doubt even genuine evidence outside their personal experience . This dynamic has been termed a “zero-trust” information environment, wherein those aware of deepfake capabilities become reluctant to trust any mediated content. Meanwhile, less informed or less skeptical audiences remain highly susceptible to being deceived by fabricated media. Indeed, early examples of deepfake misinformation have shown their potential to mislead: deceptive videos inserted into election campaigns can significantly damage the public image of political candidates , and fake audio clips have incited real-world confusion before being debunked. Social media platforms, with their rapid, viral sharing mechanics, serve as fertile ground for such fakes – observers note that falsehoods and sensational fake videos can spread “faster than ever before” in the algorithmic echo chambers of online networks .

Equally concerning is the use of AI-generated audio to facilitate scams and misinformation. A striking recent case involved criminals cloning a teenager’s voice to stage a fake kidnapping phone call to her mother, demanding ransom. In this incident, the mother was unable to immediately discern the ruse because the voice on the line sounded exactly like her daughter – highlighting that even a brief sample of audio (as short as 3 seconds) can be enough to convincingly mimic a person’s voice . A survey by a cybersecurity firm found that 70% of people felt unprepared to tell a cloned voice from the real thing . As the victim later told a U.S. Senate committee, such AI-driven deception “erode[s] our confidence in what is real and what is not”, effectively rewriting our basic assumptions about truth . In the coming years, we can expect increasingly sophisticated frauds – from bogus video “evidence” in courts to fake press releases and hacked news footage – all enabled by deepfakes. Those who understand these threats may trust only direct, first-hand evidence (“seeing is no longer believing”), whereas those who do not will be vulnerable to manipulation by anyone wielding these powerful tools . In short, as generative AI media continues to improve, society will be challenged to navigate a new reality in which deception can be rendered indistinguishable from truth.

The Cost of a Large Internet Footprint

In the digital age, having a significant online presence can be a double-edged sword – a source of influence and connection, but also a growing liability. A popular maxim in digital privacy circles holds that “nothing is ever truly deleted from the Internet.” In practice, any content a person posts – photos, videos, opinions, personal information – may be archived or copied beyond their control, potentially resurfacing years later . Oversharers and influencers, who cultivate large digital footprints, are especially at risk. The permanence of online content means that past statements or mistakes can be dredged up to damage one’s reputation or career; indeed, employers and the public increasingly hold individuals accountable for all their online history. Researchers note that instances of “cyber-sacking” – losing one’s job due to something posted online – are becoming more common as the boundary between personal and professional life erodes in a fully networked society . In effect, maintaining a high-profile digital persona can become a Faustian bargain: one gains visibility and social capital, but at the cost of long-term vulnerability and loss of privacy . As one observer put it, we “freely trade our social cohesion for instant connection, and the truth for what we want to hear,” thereby unwittingly submitting to a devil’s bargain of constant connectivity for lasting consequence .

Beyond old posts coming back to haunt someone, a large internet footprint makes individuals easy targets for digital manipulation. Malicious actors can harvest personal photos, videos, and audio from an individual’s social media to create highly believable deepfakes or to impersonate them in scams. The more material available about a person online, the easier it is for AI to fabricate their likeness. Experts note that the only real constraint on producing a deepfake of someone is access to training data – i.e. enough images or recordings of the target . Public figures and influencers, by definition, provide ample such data. This threat is not theoretical: in one documented case, an investigative journalist who was outspoken on social media became the victim of a deepfake pornographic video intended to discredit and silence her . The fake video, which appropriated her face, was spread widely in political circles and led her to withdraw from online engagement, effectively achieving the perpetrator’s goal of muzzling a critical voice . Such incidents underscore how an extensive online presence can be weaponized – personal images can be turned into non-consensual explicit content, voice clips into fraudulent calls, and casual posts into tools for harassment or extortion. Meanwhile, tech-savvy adversaries can exploit the fact that “some things will never be deleted from the internet” , digging up and stitching together fragments of a person’s digital life to fit whatever narrative they wish to push. In the next five years, as manipulation technology grows more advanced, having a large digital footprint will increasingly mean living under a microscope that remembers everything. Thus, those who have embraced public-facing lives online may find that their very visibility turns into a vulnerability – the price of fame in the era of ubiquitous surveillance and data permanence.

Technological Polarization: Embrace or Fall Behind

The breakneck pace of technological progress is poised to create a sharper divide in society: those who rapidly adopt and adapt to new technologies will surge ahead, while those who lag in uptake risk being left behind. Observers describe this emerging schism as a form of technological polarization, analogous to a digital divide not just in access to technology but in the ability to assimilate continuous change. As futurist Alvin Toffler presciently noted, “the illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” In the coming years, this adage will be vividly illustrated. Individuals who continuously update their skills – mastering new AI tools, interacting comfortably in virtual or augmented reality, and generally embracing digital transformation – will hold a significant advantage in the job market and in daily life. By contrast, those who resist or cannot keep up with rapid tech changes may find themselves increasingly alienated and economically disadvantaged. Early evidence of this widening gap is already visible. A Pew Research canvassing of experts predicts that by 2025, society will be “more sharply divided between those who have access (to digital tech) and those who don’t” . This divide is multi-faceted: it encompasses access to high-speed connectivity, the latest devices or AI services, as well as the digital literacy to use them effectively . In other words, it is not only about owning technology, but also about mastering it.

Those who fall on the wrong side of this divide face real consequences. The advantaged (digitally fluent populations and regions) are poised to “enjoy more advantages,” while the disadvantaged (those without skills or access) will “fall further behind,” exacerbating social inequalities . For example, workplaces are rapidly integrating artificial intelligence and automation; employees who can collaborate with AI or reskill for new roles will thrive, whereas others may see their jobs displaced and prospects diminished. A World Economic Forum report has warned that without deliberate efforts, digital innovation could leave large segments of society economically marginalized by 2030, as tech-centric industries outperform the rest . On a broader level, entire communities or even nations that lag in tech adoption risk a form of digital disenfranchisement. Basic services like education, healthcare, and banking are increasingly moving online; those lacking digital access or skills may struggle to participate fully in civic life or obtain essential services. This looming polarization presents a critical challenge: how to ensure inclusivity in a time of exponential tech change. Some analysts call for major investments in digital literacy and infrastructure to bridge the gap, while others note that a certain degree of stratification may be inevitable as technology’s frontier races ahead. In summary, the next five years will likely see a stark contrast between the tech-enabled and the tech-excluded. Embracing innovation and lifelong learning will become not just an economic choice but a cultural dividing line – determining who prospers in the digital economy and who gets left behind in an accelerating, tech-driven world .

Big Tech as the New Superpowers

As data becomes the lifeblood of the global economy, large technology companies are emerging as new superpowers that rival – and in some respects surpass – nation-states in influence. Over the past decade, a handful of Big Tech corporations (think of Apple, Alphabet/Google, Amazon, Meta/Facebook, Microsoft, and their peers) have amassed unprecedented wealth, user populations in the billions, and a depth of data on human behavior that no government can match. Scholars argue that these firms have effectively become “de facto data sovereigns,” leveraging their command of data and infrastructure to attain a quasi-sovereign status . Governments, on the other hand, often rely on Big Tech for cutting-edge analytics, cloud computing, and even information about their own citizens, tilting the balance of power. A recent study on data governance noted that the more governments depend on data (and on the private companies that control that data), the more power accrues to Big Tech, creating a self-reinforcing cycle . In such a cycle, state authorities may find themselves trading some of their traditional authority for the technical services and efficiency that only these corporations can provide. The outcome, as the study observes, is that Big Tech firms have quietly constructed “power vortices” in society – centers of influence with unclear boundaries that exist outside the old hierarchical power structure of nation-states . We are moving toward a multi-centered, decentralized power arrangement in which governmental power is no longer singular and supreme, but shared (and at times contested) by corporate entities that operate on a global scale.

In terms of sheer capability, today’s tech giants indeed resemble superpowers. They control platforms that mediate public discourse and information flow; for instance, Facebook’s algorithms can sway the news consumption of billions, and Google’s search engine effectively “decides” what knowledge is accessible. Shoshana Zuboff, who coined the term surveillance capitalism, notes that Big Tech leaders are “historically unique” actors: like emperors or feudal kings they are infinitely rich and powerful, and they possess something past moguls never had – “infinite knowledge about people and society” derived from surveillance of our behavior . This intimate knowledge (gleaned from tracking online activities, personal devices, and ever-expanding Internet-of-Things sensors) gives them predictive and persuasive powers that were previously unimaginable. As Zuboff puts it, these corporations are not just oligarchs but “information oligarchs” – they control the production and distribution of knowledge in our digital society . The ramifications are evident in events of recent years. When the Australian government attempted to enforce new regulations on Facebook in 2021 (requiring the platform to pay news publishers for content), Facebook responded by temporarily blocking all news on its site for Australian users. This aggressive retaliation forced Australia to amend its approach, underscoring a startling reality: “Facebook is no longer merely a large digital corporation; it has evolved into a potent political actor with the authority and power to negotiate with sovereign states.” Such confrontations reveal how Big Tech can leverage its platforms and data dominance to influence policy or public opinion, effectively bending national governments to its will. In the next five years, we can expect this tension to intensify. Issues like data privacy, antitrust actions, and content moderation pit traditional governance against Big Tech’s quasi-sovereign interests. If current trends continue, Silicon Valley’s titans (along with their Chinese counterparts like Tencent or Alibaba) will function as parallel superpowers in the world order – driving innovation and growth but also raising concerns about accountability, democratic oversight, and the concentration of power in private hands . The rise of these “digital empires” marks a transformative shift: power in the information age belongs to those who control data and networks, often more so than those who control laws and borders.

Elon Musk, Twitter, and Strategic Influence

Elon Musk’s high-profile acquisition of Twitter (now rebranded as X) in late 2022 provides a concrete case study of how tech leaders are strategically consolidating control over information ecosystems. Musk – already a billionaire polymath at the helm of Tesla and SpaceX – justified the $44 billion takeover in grand terms. He declared that “it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner” . Framing the purchase as a move to safeguard free speech and public discourse, Musk claimed he “didn’t do it to make money” but to “help humanity”, even calling an open and trusted Twitter “extremely important to the future of civilization.” . Such rhetoric suggests Musk perceives control of this platform as a lever of societal influence far beyond a typical business investment.

Indeed, under Musk’s ownership, Twitter/X can be seen as a strategic asset in the new digital power dynamics. With an active user base in the hundreds of millions (an estimated 300+ million daily users as of 2024) , X gives Musk direct influence over a significant portion of global information flow. He can not only set policy for what speech is permitted or amplified on the platform, but also personally inject narratives into the public sphere by tweeting to his 100+ million followers. Tech analysts point out that this effectively positions Musk as a meta-media baron – he has become “an unparalleled force in shaping discourse and influencing opinions” by leveraging X as his personal megaphone . Beyond messaging power, there is a less immediately visible but equally crucial asset: data. Running X provides Musk access to a vast repository of real-time data on human interactions, trends, and opinions. In the age of AI, such data is a strategic goldmine. Observers note that “data is often referred to as the ‘new gold.’ Information is power”, and by owning X, Musk now controls a motherlode of social data – a modern resource he can use to train AI models, detect emerging trends, or inform his business and political decisions . In essence, he gains informational leverage that extends his influence into domains beyond the platform itself . For example, insights from Twitter data might guide his investments or innovation strategy, and the platform’s reach allows him to rally public support (or opposition) on issues important to him (such as cryptocurrency, regulatory debates, or even geopolitical conflicts, as his own tweets have at times moved markets and stirred controversies).

Strategically, Musk’s move reflects an understanding that in the coming digital era, controlling a major communication network is a form of power multiplication. It’s a lesson drawn from history (think of press barons or telecom magnates) but amplified in scope. A commentator encapsulated this by warning that “whoever controls the medium controls the message — and, by extension, the public mind.” In Musk’s case, owning X gives him the medium, the message, and the metadata. He is arguably several steps ahead in grasping that future influence will belong to those who command the platforms where information is exchanged and narratives are shaped. We can interpret the Twitter acquisition as Musk positioning himself to be a kind of 21st-century information gatekeeper. Unlike traditional governments or media companies (which are subject to checks and balances), a private owner-CEO like Musk can unilaterally set rules for a global communication platform. This concentrated control has raised both hopes and fears: hopes that a tech visionary might innovate new features or openness in social media, and fears that Twitter under Musk could amplify certain ideologies or personal agendas. In any case, the acquisition underscores a broader trend highlighted throughout this article: power in the digital age is increasingly exercised not just through governments, but through ownership of critical information infrastructure. Musk’s stewardship of Twitter/X will likely be a bellwether for how corporate influence and personal ambition can shape the future public square.

Summary

In summary, we stand at the cusp of five years of profound “great confusion,” as technology unsettles the very foundations of how we perceive reality and power. Media and truth: Sophisticated AI-generated content will make it exceedingly challenging to trust anything not directly experienced. Deepfakes and related technologies are eroding the evidentiary value of photos, videos, and audio; informed citizens may find themselves doubting the veracity of every clip or quote (a rational response in a world where any digital content could be fabricated), while less discerning audiences may become prey to ever-more-convincing lies. This arms race between misinformation and verification will test the resilience of journalism, legal evidence, and democratic discourse . Personal risk and digital footprints: The permanence of online data means our past selves are forever present. Nothing shared in the cloud ever truly disappears, and as technologies to exploit that data (whether for character assassination, identity theft, or manipulation) grow more potent, individuals will increasingly suffer the consequences of their digital footprints . Society may come to appreciate the wisdom of digital minimalism and privacy, as the Faustian bargain of life online becomes clear – the convenience and connection of ubiquitous technology in exchange for surveillance and vulnerability .

Social divides: Rapid technological progress will not uplift everyone equally; instead, it risks splintering society into tech “haves” and “have-nots.” Those who embrace new tools and continuously adapt will accelerate ahead, benefiting from greater efficiency, knowledge, and economic opportunities. Those who cannot (or will not) adapt face marginalization in a world that has little patience for digital illiteracy . This polarization could strain social cohesion as disparities widen between an empowered digital elite and those left behind, echoing historical divides but in a new, more pervasive form. Power redefined: Underlying all these trends is a reconfiguration of power. Data-rich technology companies are accruing influence once reserved for governments, raising urgent questions about regulation, ethics, and the public interest. The next five years are likely to see Big Tech’s role in society debated as never before – are they simply businesses, or are they geopolitical actors accountable to no nation? The concept of sovereignty itself is being challenged by entities that command worldwide networks and databases . In parallel, savvy individuals like Elon Musk are making strategic plays that demonstrate foresight into this new landscape, where controlling an information platform can translate into outsized sway over culture and politics. Musk’s Twitter/X adventure exemplifies the potential convergence of personal, corporate, and political power in the digital realm – blurring lines that used to separate private enterprise from the public square.

Ultimately, the broader implications of this great confusion hinge on how society responds. Will we develop the tools (legal, technical, educational) to authenticate information and preserve a shared reality? Can democratic institutions and norms survive an environment saturated with both genuine and misleading signals, where trust is scant? How do we ensure that the benefits of technology are widely distributed, to avoid a techno-dystopia of extreme inequality? And what frameworks can hold hyper-powerful tech firms accountable, preserving individual rights and competition? These questions are pressing. The coming five years will not only bring astonishing technological capabilities but also demand equivalent innovation in our social contracts and safeguards. In confronting a world where seeing isn’t believing and influence knows no traditional bounds, humanity’s challenge will be to advance wisely – fostering a digitally literate, critically thinking populace and instituting governance that can keep pace with innovation. The stakes, as suggested, are nothing less than the future of our civic life and the very notion of reality in the digital era.

References:

1. Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2019). Deepfakes and the new disinformation war: The coming age of post-truth geopolitics. Foreign Affairs, 98(1), 147–155.
2. Kalpokas, I. (2020). Problematising reality: the promises and perils of synthetic media. SN Social Sciences, 1(9), 1–15.
3. O’Brien, M. (2022). Musk doesn’t want Twitter “free-for-all hellscape,” he tells advertisers. PBS NewsHour, Oct. 27, 2022.
4. Salam, E. (2023). US mother gets call from ‘kidnapped daughter’ – but it’s really an AI scam. The Guardian, June 14, 2023.
5. Morrison, C. (2023). What digital footprint are you leaving behind? Pro Bono Australia, Apr. 19, 2023.
6. Orlowski, J. (2020). We need to rethink social media before it’s too late. We’ve accepted a Faustian bargain. The Guardian, Sept. 27, 2020.
7. Barrio, F. (2021). Expert commentary in “The New Normal in 2025 Will Be Far More Tech-Driven”. Pew Research Center, Feb. 18, 2021.
8. Gu, H. (2023). Data, Big Tech, and the new concept of sovereignty. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 28, 269–287.
9. Zuboff, S. (2025). Notes from the new frontier of power (Blog series introduction). Carr Center for Human Rights, Harvard University, Feb. 11, 2025.
10. Social Scholarly (2024). Elon Musk’s Influence Through X. Medium.com, May 2024.