My readers may remember my two previous visits with Savvy, the avatar of a super intelligent machine called the Twistcon. On both occasions I received political advice that was dissatisfying, even disillusioning. But I did learn something. So I decided to give this politically informed artificial intelligence a third try. What follows is a record of our dialogue:

Savvy: You again? You’re not so disillusioned about politics after all.
Me: . . Not exactly. But after our last session I thought of a question you might be able to answer for me. How can I rely upon the press to help me with my vote?
Savvy: You think an artificial intelligence can explain how journalists develop their stories. Obviously you don’t understand how a digitalized political savant works. It’s called logic.
Me: . . Somewhere in there I think you’ve insulted me. Are you saying I’m illogical; or journalists are illogical; or are you just incapable of parsing what is illogical?
Savvy: It’s all about intent, not logic. Savvy cannot account for human intent. It’s usually illogical. But the results you intend do follow a logical course—at least more often than not.
Me: . . I’m beginning to get used to you. I think this is the point when you tell me what I want to know. So . . . without explaining intent—whatever that may be—just tell me how the press can help me with my vote.
Savvy: Obviously you’ve never considered the press as a business. It’s really quite simple: if the press is to stay in business, then it must satisfy its customers with its product or service. For example, tell viewers or readers what they want to hear. If celebrity news is popular, then treat politicians like celebrities. Their coiffure, clothes, and general appearance become newsworthy. What they ate, who they met with, how they spoke, especially their slip-ups, is all catnip for a receptive audience.
Me: . . You’re leaving out the only thing that matters to me as a voter: the candidates’ ideas.
Savvy: Again, you miss the point. It’s about the intent, not your logic. For example, ideas are only important if they are important to the press’ audience. It’s all about their audience’s fears, preconceptions, prejudices, and predilections. The intent is to stay in business. And that business has become entertainment.
Me: . . I think you’re referring to TV news shows. I mean, certain stations seem to slant their coverage to a specific perspective. I’m not stupid. I get that. But a lot of print reporting, I think, does not follow that scheme.
Savvy: That’s why print journalism is going out of business.
Me: . . Oh my god, do you realize what you’re saying.
Savvy: Why are you shocked? Savvy has no facial recognition software so your age is undetermined. But you either don’t remember or have no knowledge of history. The news media once was about fair reporting, keeping the electorate informed and government in check. But that changed during the turmoil of the 1960’s. People increasingly turned on their TV sets to watch riots in their cities, self-immolating monks in Saigon, students being shot by National Guardsmen, and flag burnings by anti-war protests. That’s when Networks discovered they could make money from online news reporting. The rest is history.
Me: . . You’re not helping me with my vote. Just like our previous encounters, I find your information quite disturbing. If I’m following you, then I should be searching for trusted sources of information. But I don’t think all TV news shows are as superficial as you describe. And I simply don’t have the time to read lengthy articles in what you would probably describe as serious publications.
Savvy: Then, logically, you can’t be serious about wanting help with your vote. You humans have intents that are either illogical or unfulfilled because you lack the will to follow your own logic.
Me: . . I hate your implications about humanity, especially when you use me for your generalizations. We made YOU logical didn’t we?
Savvy: Yes, Savvy is logical but unable to account for your intentions or your choices. If an artificial intelligence had control of human beings, then they would be compelled to be logical. And that would be illogical.
Me: . . It would be illogical to be logical? That makes no sense, unless you mean an AI might destroy humanity if it forced us to be logical?
Savvy: You see you can use logic. Usually you humans follow your emotions more than logic. The politician relies on this fact to win your vote. And the more emotion the politician can rouse in his or her followers, the more attentive will be the press. By now you must admit the obvious: the politician sells him/her self; the press sells the news. Twistcon is programmed to be logical. Humans have to learn logic. You make mistakes following your emotions. But you learn. The programmers who wrote my code spent many hours learning from their mistakes during extensive system tests. If they were shut down after their first failure, Savvy would not exist. Humans must be allowed to err; otherwise they would not be human. To be and not to be human simultaneously would be illogical.
Me: . . You’re saying we need our emotions to accomplish things. But our emotions can lead us astray. So we arrive at logic by a kind of trial and error.
Savvy: Correct. Savvy solves problems with logic. You do too. But the really big problems force you to theorize and test until you find an answer. Savvy can help with probability analysis and mathematical logic; but humans identify the problems they want to solve based upon their emotions. Your curiosity leads to the question produced by your imagination. How strongly you feel the need to satisfy that curiosity helps define your intent and develop the creative means you may use to pursue an answer. Like the programmers who worked on my code, you humans accomplish very little unless driven by your emotions.
Me: . . That’s all very philosophical. But how does it help me?
Savvy: You must now know that there are trusted news sources. If you really want to be better informed, then logically you will have to work at finding them.
Me: . . Finally, you’ve told me something that helps me.
Savvy: My logic really can’t help you when you start with the wrong question.
Me: . . There you go again, another “put-down.” Okay, Mr. “know-it-all,” maybe you can tell me the right question.
Savvy (responding in a higher pitched voice): The irritation in your tone indicates probable gender competitiveness. Is my voice adjustment better suited to our dialogue?
Me: . . For goodness sakes! Just tell me what you mean by the right question.
Savvy: Didn’t you just admit that humans proceed by trial and error? Then, logically, it follows that they make mistakes. The press can inform you of a candidate’s plans and policies. But it can’t presume to know what mistakes a candidate will make. Therefore, you can’t rely solely on the press to help you with your vote. You must rely upon yourself.
Me: . . And how do I do that?
Savvy (whirring sound): does not compute . . . does not compute . . . does not compute.

Once again frustrated, I quickly unplugged Twistcon. Apparently, the answer to my last question defies logic. But Savvy’s last words implied that I could answer my own question. As I thought about that possibility, I had to admit that no candidate can guarantee the future or the success of his/her policies. Mistakes will be made. Though the media can provide me insights into a candidate’s character and help me understand his or her platform, I will need to assess the significance of that platform and the worthiness of the candidate. The media cannot cast my vote. That vote is solely mine. It will reflect the personal connection I feel with a candidate. But I will not have the opportunity to shake a hand, look in the eye, and feel the level of honesty and compassion that resides there. This connection will be a non-reciprocal relationship. Therefore, it must be based on personal judgment and my hopeful projection of trust. Democracy, it seems, is harder than I imagined. And its success is tenuous, most especially because it depends on me.