At Mind Matters News we often discuss whether chatbots and similar systems powered by artificial intelligence (AI) can be designed to tell the whole relevant truth, to deliver verifiable facts, and not to lie or deceive. We talk about the need to learn how to read past the AI-generated words and assess underlying meanings.

So, let’s test our skills by checking how well human authorities perform in these same categories. For example, let’s analyze the U.S. government media release issued on December 16, 2024, to inform the American public about the continuing rash of airborne drones sighted in some eastern states.

Witnesses report and record apparent drone events

First, here are some of the most relevant currently known facts. Since November 18, 2024, witnesses have reported seeing drones hovering in the skies above New Jersey and other northeastern states. Though they have been lighting up night skies, they are currently without explanation or known origin.

Reports typically describe them as large, with estimates of six to eight feet in diameter. They often appear to be fixed-wing craft equipped with colorful blinking lights. Witnesses describe seeing them flying from dusk until around 11 p.m., hovering or zigzagging in the sky. Some are heard making loud humming sounds.

These drones have been spotted near military installations, airports, and residential areas. Former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan video recorded the appearance of dozens of drones above his residence. The FBI office in Baltimore confirmed awareness of the drones. State and local government personnel confirm that drones are appearing often but admit that little is known about them so far. Naturally, citizens in the area are curious and increasingly concerned, both about the drones and about the governments’ seeming ignorance, unwillingness or powerlessness to deal with them.

Two federal agencies state the government’s position

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a statement to the American people on December 16 about a month after the first drone sightings. Let’s analyze each of its three paragraphs to find what was communicated (or not).

Paragraph 1:

We have no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or public safety threat or have a foreign nexus. The FBI, DHS and our federal partners, in close coordination with the New Jersey State Police, continue to deploy personnel and technology to investigate this situation and confirm whether the reported drone flights are actually drones or are instead manned aircraft or otherwise inaccurate sightings.

Points to Ponder:

1. Saying they “have no evidence” that the “sightings pose” a danger is deviously weak. “Sightings” never pose a danger. The sentence says nothing about the drones themselves, despite their being seen by numerous people for over a month.

2. If the two agencies say they “have no evidence” that the drones themselves pose a danger, they still provide no information about the drones — only about the agencies’ ignorance. They don’t even suggest what they might consider as “evidence.” The paragraph also distracts readers who don’t realize that the Department of Defense (DOD) should be a source of information in such matters yet it goes without the slightest mention.

3. The paragraph ends by hinting that the drones may not be drones but either manned aircraft or run-of-the-mill “inaccurate sightings.” Its vague mention of “personnel and technology” does not inform readers of anything.

Paragraph 2:

Historically, we have experienced cases of mistaken identity, where reported drones are, in fact, manned aircraft or facilities. We are supporting local law enforcement in New Jersey with numerous detection methods but have not corroborated any of the reported visual sightings with electronic detection. To the contrary, upon review of available imagery, it appears that many of the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft, operating lawfully. There are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted air space.

Points to Ponder:

1. The paragraph begins by wholesale discounting the huge number of witnesses and many video recordings of the craft that appear to be drones. The press release gives no example of any of the drones that were spotted being dismissed as mistakenly identified.

2. The second sentence contends that “law enforcement” – not the Air Force or other military forces – has “not corroborated” any of the visual sightings using unspecified “electronic detection.” It is striking that the Air Force, which surely must have more expertise, is unmentioned. The attempt here to claim that the countless witnesses and photographic evidence is “not corroborated” is rhetorical; it is not demonstrated as factual.

3. The third sentence asserts that many of the sightings of craft were lawfully piloted aircraft. Yet again, not a single example is given.

4. The fourth sentence sounds deceptive. It says that no drones were “reported or confirmed” to be flying in “restricted air space.” To make such a sweeping claim suggests that the agencies have tracked every single reported drone sighting in the past month, plotting its location and altitude – and compared that hard data with air traffic maps. If the broad claim is true, then readers ought to wonder how these agencies can know so much about the location of every drone but not know what they are.

Paragraph 3:

We take seriously the threat that can be posed by unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which is why law enforcement and other agencies continue to support New Jersey and investigate the reports. To be clear, they have uncovered no such malicious activity or intent at this stage. While there is no known malicious activity occurring in New Jersey, the reported sightings there do, however, highlight the insufficiency of current authorities.

Points to Ponder:

1. This paragraph still omits any mention of the Air Force or other DOD assets that presumably would want to check out possible U.S. airspace intrusions.

2. Despite the fact that drones have been witnessed in several states, certainly including Maryland, the media release refers only to New Jersey.

3. The second sentence asserts that the agencies involved “have uncovered no such malicious activity or intent” yet.  What does “such malicious activity or intent” refer to? The use of the phrase “such malicious activity or intent” implies that the writers know of potential malicious activity or intent. Did they decide against raising the matter with readers but then fail to read over the release one last time? Oops.

4. The use of the term “malicious” would seem to indicate that the writers hope that media will seize on a “no evidence of maliciousness” sound bite. There is not a word about other uses of drones to which citizens might object, such as passive visual or radio surveillance and tracking.

5. The media release writers inadvertently admit that they know that they are not really dealing with the public’s questions in this troubling matter. The paragraph’s final sentence denies “known malicious activity” in New Jersey but castigates the “current authorities” for their “insufficiency.” The federal agencies thus shift the blame for undefined “insufficiency” to local agencies — thereby conceding that the drone mystery has been consistently mishandled.

The federal agencies’ media release gives us a sobering example of a communication that under-informs, distracts, and misleads readers even as it sounds reassuring and authoritative. As AI-generated writings become more common, we’ll need to learn the skills to unpack them so as to identify the same kinds of weaknesses.

Then the Cavalry arrives!

One day after the problematic December 16 press release, four agencies, including the FBI and DHS as well as DOD, issued a seemingly better report: “DHS, FBI, FAA & DoD Joint Statement on Ongoing Response to Reported Drone Sightings.”

The December 17 Joint Statement contradicts the December 16 report, admitting that drones have been seen within restricted air space and over military bases. It further admits that the FBI received over 5,000 drone reports in the last month, but broadly states that there is nothing to see here, move along.

The four agencies give this high-level summary aiming to resolve all concerns about the drone sightings:

Having closely examined the technical data and tips from concerned citizens, we assess that the sightings to date include a combination of lawful commercial drones, hobbyist drones, and law enforcement drones, as well as manned fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and stars mistakenly reported as drones. We have not identified anything anomalous and do not assess the activity to date to present a national security or public safety risk[.]

Not to belabor the point, but this summary is vague and does not even confirm how many tips, reports, photos, and videos were actually analyzed. It lumps together all “the sightings to date” and defines them all as uninteresting.

Bottom line: The December 16 Report said “Take our word for it.” The December 17 Joint Statement says “Take our word for it.” AI-generated information such as from internet searches and large language model systems will similarly expect us to take AI’s word as the truth. We face an accelerating challenge of sorting through the modern barrage of information. Whom to trust — and why — are not easy questions to answer these days.

You may also wish to read: The drones continue to hover. Mystery drones have been sighted in New Jersey and other states. Finally, the FBI and Homeland Security is starting to investigate, and we will hopefully have a transparent answer about the origin of the drones. (Peter Biles)