The Making of: Is Google Search Getting Worse?

Welcome back to our ongoing exploration of Source Synthesis, a method for creating structured dialogues that illuminate complex issues by drawing on diverse source materials. We recently published the Source Synthesis Role-Play Handbook, a practical guide to this innovative approach. Now, we’re taking you behind the scenes of our latest project: a role-play titled Is Google Search Getting Worse? Separating Fact from Fiction.

This role-play brings together a journalist, a tech lobbyist, an economist, and a moderator to debate the increasingly controversial role of Google search in shaping our access to information. The discussion is informed by a research paper generated using Google’s Gemini Deep Research, highlighting the collaborative potential of humans and AI in exploring complex topics.

This “making of” post offers a transparent look at the creative process behind “Is Google Search Getting Worse?”. We’ll examine the choices we made, the challenges we faced, and the lessons we learned in applying the Source Synthesis method. From crafting the personas and the moderator to generating the dialogue with the help of AI, we’ll share the steps involved in bringing this thought-provoking conversation to life.

II: Genesis of the Idea

The genesis of “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” stemmed from a confluence of factors: the ongoing public debate surrounding the quality of online information, our desire to test the newly developed Source Synthesis method, and the capabilities of advanced AI tools like Google’s Gemini Deep Research.

We were particularly intrigued by the growing number of articles and discussions questioning the effectiveness of Google search. Users across the internet were voicing concerns about the increasing prominence of ads, the proliferation of SEO-manipulated content, and the difficulty of finding reliable information. This seemed like a perfect topic to explore using Source Synthesis – a complex issue with diverse perspectives and significant societal implications.

As we were developing the Source Synthesis Role-Play Handbook, we were also experimenting with Google’s Gemini Deep Research. We were impressed by its ability to synthesize information from a variety of sources and generate comprehensive reports. This led us to a key question: could we use Gemini Deep Research to create the foundational research paper for our role-play?

Elaborating the Idea

The idea was to not only explore the issue of Google search quality but also to demonstrate the collaborative potential between humans and AI in knowledge creation. We tasked Gemini Deep Research with investigating the question, “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” and the resulting paper became the cornerstone of our role-play, providing the moderator with a framework for the discussion and the panelists with a common point of reference.

The decision to focus the role-play on a panel discussion format was driven by our desire to create a dynamic and engaging exchange of ideas. We envisioned a scenario where experts from different fields could debate the issue, challenge each other’s perspectives, and offer potential solutions, all while staying grounded in the research findings. This format, we believed, would be the most effective way to showcase the Source Synthesis method in action.

III: Building the Foundation with the Handbook

The creation of “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” was directly guided by the principles and procedures outlined in the Source Synthesis Role-Play Handbook. The handbook, developed in parallel with our earlier experiments in Source Synthesis, served as a practical blueprint for structuring the role-play and ensuring a rigorous, yet engaging, exploration of the topic.

The handbook emphasizes several key steps, and we consciously applied each of these to our process.

Key Steps

• Topic Selection: As described in the previous section, we chose a topic – the declining quality of Google search – that was both timely and complex, lending itself to a multi-faceted discussion.
• Source Selection: We began with the research paper generated by Gemini Deep Research. This provided a broad overview of the issue and identified key areas of concern. We then supplemented this with additional sources, including the article on “alt big tech” in India, to inform the perspective of Dr. Patel, and online content to form the basis for the Q&A.
• Persona Creation: This was a crucial step. We crafted distinct personas – the journalist (Lex Thorne), the lobbyist (Max Powers), and the economist (Dr. Rajiv Patel) – each embodying a specific viewpoint on Big Tech and its impact. The handbook’s guidance on developing detailed persona profiles, including backstories, motivations, and communication styles, was instrumental in bringing these characters to life.
• Dialogue Structure: The handbook’s recommendation for a clear structure, with distinct sections for introduction, debate, and potential solutions, helped us organize the conversation and ensure a logical flow. We also incorporated the suggested “what if” scenario (though this did not feature in the final draft, the concept helped frame Lex’s perspective) and a Q&A section to add further depth.
• The Role of “Pre-editing”: Throughout the process, we were acutely aware of the “pre-editing” concept, a key element of Source Synthesis. Our choices in selecting sources, crafting personas, and framing questions fundamentally shaped the narrative and the perspectives presented. This underscored the importance of transparency and ethical considerations in using this method.
• Using AI as a Tool: As detailed in the handbook, we leveraged AI (Gemini) to assist in drafting and refining the dialogue. This iterative process, involving multiple rounds of generation and human editing, allowed us to experiment with different phrasing, tone, and arguments, ultimately creating a more natural and engaging conversation.

The Handbook as the framework

In essence, the Source Synthesis Role-Play Handbook provided the framework, and our collaborative effort, combining human creativity with AI capabilities, brought the “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” role-play to life. The handbook served not just as a guide, but as a constant point of reference, ensuring that we stayed true to the core principles of the Source Synthesis method.

IV: Crafting the Personas

The creation of compelling and believable personas is at the heart of the Source Synthesis method. For “Is Google Search Getting Worse?”, we developed three distinct personas, each representing a key perspective on the issue of Big Tech’s influence and the changing landscape of online information: the investigative journalist, the tech lobbyist, and the Indian economist. We also included a question from an audience member.

Lex Thorne: The Investigative Journalist

Lex Thorne, our investigative journalist, embodies a critical perspective on Big Tech, driven by concerns about data privacy, misinformation, and the erosion of trust in online information. While a fictional character, Lex draws partially inspiration from the work and public persona of Carole Cadwalladr, a British journalist renowned for her investigation of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The Lex persona would also include a fictional American component.

Lex’s backstory, including her upbringing in the Rust Belt and her early career as a blogger, was crafted to provide a plausible context for her skepticism towards the promises of Silicon Valley. Her vegetarianism and commitment to animal rights were added to create a point of personal conflict with the lobbyist, Max Powers, adding another layer of depth to their interactions.

Lex’s voice in the role-play is intended to be direct, passionate, and at times, confrontational. She uses shorter sentences and more forceful language, reflecting her determination to expose the truth and challenge the status quo.

Max Powers: The Big Tech Lobbyist

Max Powers, in contrast to Lex, represents the perspective of the major technology companies. He is a fictional character, a composite designed to embody the arguments and strategies commonly used by lobbyists and industry representatives.

To create Max, we drew upon extensive research into the world of Big Tech lobbying, including industry publications, lobbying reports, and public statements by tech executives. We also utilized a detailed guide on crafting a believable “corporate shill” lobbyist, which provided insights into their backstories, motivations, and typical talking points. This guide emphasized the importance of portraying a character who is charming, articulate, and confident, but also cynical, pragmatic, and ultimately self-interested.

Max’s dialogue is characterized by smooth, corporate-speak, often deflecting criticism with well-rehearsed arguments about innovation, economic growth, and consumer choice. He is designed to be a formidable opponent for Lex, skillfully twisting arguments and using his charm to disarm critics.

Dr. Rajiv Patel: The Indian Economist and Sociologist

Dr. Rajiv Patel brings a crucial global perspective to the discussion, drawing upon his expertise in the impact of technology on developing economies, particularly in India. His character is inspired by researchers and commentators who have explored the complex interplay of opportunities and challenges presented by Big Tech’s expansion into India.

We used Smriti Parsheera’s article, “Digital Public Infrastructure and the Jeopardy of ‘Alt Big Tech’ in India,” to inform Dr. Patel’s views on “alt big tech,” the role of Aadhaar and UPI, and the need for a balanced approach to technological development that considers both economic benefits and ethical implications. His devout Hindu faith, with its emphasis on non-violence and compassion, adds another layer to his character and provides a point of connection with Lex’s concerns about animal welfare.

Dr. Patel’s voice is intended to be a balance of academic and conversational. He explains complex ideas in an accessible way, but he also uses his expertise to challenge both Lex and Max, offering a nuanced perspective that transcends the typical Western-centric view of Big Tech.

Sarah Chen: The Audience Member

Sarah Chen is a fictional character who asks a question during the Q&A section of the panel discussion. Her question, about the disappearance of “Googlewhacks,” is taken from the general discussion about the changing landscape of on-line information and Google search.

By carefully crafting these personas, drawing on both real-world inspirations and fictional elements, we aimed to create a dynamic and engaging dialogue that illuminates the diverse perspectives surrounding the issue of Big Tech’s power and the changing landscape of online information.

V: The Role of AI in the Creative Process

The creation of “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” was a collaborative effort between human creativity and artificial intelligence. We leveraged the capabilities of AI tools, primarily Google’s Gemini and Gemini Deep Research, at several key stages of the process, demonstrating the potential for AI to augment and enhance, but not replace, human input in creative writing.

Generating the Foundational Research

Our starting point was the research paper, “Is Google Search Getting Worse? Separating Fact from Fiction.” This paper, which served as the central point of reference for the panel discussion, was generated entirely by Gemini Deep Research. We provided the prompt, and the AI tool synthesized information from a variety of online sources to create a comprehensive report outlining key trends and concerns related to Google search quality. This demonstrates AI’s ability to conduct rapid and thorough research, providing a solid foundation for our creative project.

Persona Development (Indirect Use)

While the personas were primarily crafted through human analysis of source materials and drawing on concepts for fictional characters, the initial research conducted via Gemini Deep Research helped inform the selection of relevant sources and the identification of key arguments and perspectives. The use of Gemini also informed the construction of the backstories.

Dialogue Drafting

The most significant role of AI was in the initial drafting of the dialogue. We used Gemini as a powerful writing assistant. We provided the AI with the persona profiles (including backstories, motivations, and communication styles); the key questions for each section of the dialogue; the findings from the research paper; specific instructions to keep the personas “in character” and to reflect their established viewpoints.

Gemini generated initial drafts of each section, providing a skeletal framework for the conversation. This dramatically accelerated the writing process and allowed us to quickly explore different dialogue possibilities.

Iterative Refinement and the “Adjustment of Dials”

The AI-generated drafts were far from perfect. They often required significant human editing and refinement to:

• Improve the naturalness and flow of the conversation.
• Ensure consistency in the personas’ voices.
• Correct any factual inaccuracies or misrepresentations of source material.
• Add emotional depth and nuance.
• Introduce the “by the way” comment and develop the sub-conflict.

We iteratively refined the dialogue, using Gemini to experiment with different phrasing, tone, and arguments. We could “adjust the dials,” as described in the handbook, by:

• Adding or removing sources.
• Modifying persona parameters (e.g., making Lex more confrontational, Max more evasive).
• Rephrasing moderator questions to elicit different responses.

This iterative process, combining AI generation with human editing and critical judgment, was crucial in shaping the final product.

Expert Feedback Integration

To further refine the role-play, we engaged in a meta-exercise, role-playing a panel of experts (a playwright, an NPC game developer, a tech conference organizer, and a podcast producer) to provide feedback on the dialogue. This process, also facilitated by Gemini, allowed us to consider the role-play from multiple perspectives and identify areas for improvement. The feedback from these “expert personas” led to significant revisions, including:

• Enhancements to the naturalness of the dialogue.
• Refinements to the persona voices and motivations.
• Adjustments to the structure and pacing of the conversation.
• Considerations for adapting the role-play to different formats (e.g., audio podcast).

This meta-layer of role-play highlights the versatility of the Source Synthesis method and its potential for self-reflection and improvement.

In summary, AI served as a valuable tool throughout the creation of “Is Google Search Getting Worse?”, from generating the initial research to assisting with dialogue drafting and refinement. However, human creativity, critical judgment, and domain expertise remained essential for shaping the narrative, crafting believable personas, and ensuring the overall quality and ethical soundness of the role-play. The project demonstrates a powerful synergy between human and artificial intelligence, highlighting the potential for AI to augment and enhance the creative process.

VI: “Pre-editing”: Shaping the Narrative

As outlined in the Source Synthesis Handbook, “pre-editing” is a defining characteristic of the method, referring to the significant shaping of the dialogue that occurs before the conversation is even generated. It’s the crucial stage where the creator makes deliberate choices that determine the direction, scope, and tone of the role-play. In the creation of “Is Google Search Getting Worse?”, “pre-editing” played a pivotal role in shaping the narrative and ensuring a focused and insightful discussion.

Key “Pre-editing” Decisions

Topic Selection: The choice to focus on the declining quality of Google search, a timely and relevant issue with diverse perspectives, immediately established the scope of the role-play. Source Selection: The selection of the Gemini Deep Research paper as the primary source provided a factual framework and identified key areas of concern.

The subsequent choice of sources to inform Dr. Patel’s perspective (Smriti Parsheera’s article) and Lex Thorne’s persona (inspired by Carole Cadwalladr) further shaped the range of viewpoints represented. The decision not to include a source representing an explicitly pro-AI, pro-Big Tech, unregulated growth perspective (beyond Max’s role as a lobbyist) was also a significant “pre-editing” choice, focusing the debate on the challenges posed by current trends.

Persona Creation: The crafting of Lex Thorne, Max Powers, and Dr. Rajiv Patel as distinct personas, each with specific backstories, motivations, and communication styles, was a critical “pre-editing” step. This involved not only summarizing source material but also making creative choices about their personalities and relationships. The addition of the personal conflict point (diet) between Lex and Max was a deliberate “pre-editing” decision to add dynamism to the dialogue.

Deciding the Questions

Moderator Role and Questions: The design of the moderator’s role (Kim) and the formulation of key questions were crucial in guiding the conversation. The questions were specifically crafted to elicit responses that would highlight the core issues raised in the research paper and to encourage debate between the personas. The decision to have the moderator hold the physicalresearch paper was also significant.

“What If” Scenario (Ultimately Removed): The initial consideration, and later removal, of a “what if” scenario further demonstrates the iterative nature of “pre-editing.”

Q&A Framing: The selection of Sarah Chen’s question about “Googlewhacks” was a deliberate “pre-editing” choice, designed to introduce a specific point about the changing nature of search and its impact on access to niche information.

The Impact of “Pre-editing”

These “pre-editing” decisions had a profound impact on the resulting dialogue. They determined:

• The range of perspectives presented.
• The specific issues discussed.
• The tone and direction of the conversation.
• The potential for conflict and resolution.

Transparency and Ethics:

Because “pre-editing” involves such significant shaping of the narrative, transparency is paramount. The introduction to the role-play explicitly states that it is a constructed dialogue based on the Source Synthesis method, and the “Sources and Persona Development” section reveals the inspirations and sources behind each persona. This allows readers to critically evaluate the choices made and to understand the context in which the dialogue was created.

“Pre-editing” is not about imposing a single viewpoint but rather about creating a structured framework for exploring a complex issue from multiple perspectives. It’s about curating a conversation that is both informative and engaging, drawing on real-world sources to illuminate different facets of the problem. The goal is to foster understanding, not to dictate conclusions.

VII: The Role of “Experts”: From the Outside and the Inside

The Source Synthesis method, while emphasizing the creation of a dynamic dialogue, also recognizes the importance of grounding the conversation in real-world knowledge and expertise. In “Is Google Search Getting Worse?”, this grounding took two forms: the inclusion of an “expert” persona within the role-play itself, and the “meta” consultation with expert reviewers during the development process.

Dr. Rajiv Patel: The “Inside” Expert

Dr. Patel, our Indian economist and sociologist, served as the primary “inside” expert. His presence was crucial for several reasons:

• Global Perspective: He broadened the discussion beyond a purely Western-centric view, highlighting the unique challenges and opportunities faced by developing economies like India.
• Nuanced Perspective: He offered a balanced perspective, acknowledging both the benefits and drawbacks of Big Tech and “alt big tech”.
• Ethical Considerations: He brought an ethical dimension to the conversation, drawing on his Hindu faith and advocating for responsible technological development.
• Source-Based Expertise: His arguments and insights were directly informed by real-world research.

This grounding in expertise lent credibility to his contributions and ensured the dialogue remained rooted in factual information.

The “Outside” Experts: A Meta-Perspective

Beyond the role-play itself, we engaged in a “meta” Source Synthesis process, consulting with a panel of “expert personas” to review and refine the dialogue. This panel included:

A Playwright: Focused on dialogue, character development, and dramatic tension.

An NPC Game Developer: Offered insights on persona creation, interactivity, and emotional arcs.

A Tech Conference Organizer: Provided feedback on the overall structure, flow, and audience engagement.

A Podcast Producer: Advised on adapting the role-play for an audio format.

This “meta” role-play, facilitated by AI, allowed us to consider the dialogue from multiple professional perspectives. The feedback from these “experts” led to significant improvements, including:

• Enhancing the naturalness of the dialogue.
• Strengthening the persona voices and motivations.
• Adding a personal conflict point.
• Streamlining the structure and pacing.
• Considering the potential for audio adaptation and interactive elements.

The Value of Expertise

Both the “inside” expert (Dr. Patel) and the “outside” expert reviewers played crucial roles in shaping the final product. Dr. Patel provided in-dialogue expertise, grounding the conversation in real-world research and offering a global perspective. The “outside” experts provided meta-level feedback, helping us refine the dialogue and ensure it met the goals of the Source Synthesis method.

This dual approach to expertise – incorporating both an in-dialogue expert and external reviewers – highlights the flexibility of the Source Synthesis method. It demonstrates how the method can be used not only to create engaging dialogues but also to facilitate a rigorous and iterative development process, drawing on diverse forms of knowledge to enhance the final product. The method itself can be used for creating and for reviewing.

VIII: Challenges and Limitations

The creation of “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” presented several challenges, both specific to this particular role-play and inherent to the Source Synthesis method itself. Acknowledging these challenges and limitations is crucial for maintaining transparency and for guiding future applications of the method.

Challenges Encountered

Condensing Complex Information: The research paper on Google search quality, and the article on “alt big tech,” covered a wide range of complex issues. Distilling this information into concise and accessible dialogue, while retaining its nuance and accuracy, was a significant challenge.

Maintaining Persona Voices: Ensuring that each persona maintained a consistent and believable voice throughout the dialogue required careful attention to their established backstories, motivations, and communication styles. It was crucial to avoid making them sound like mere mouthpieces for the source material and to allow for individual personalities to emerge.

Balancing Perspectives: Striking a balance between the different perspectives, particularly the opposing views of Lex and Max, was essential for creating a dynamic and engaging debate. We had to ensure that each persona had a fair opportunity to express their arguments without allowing any single viewpoint to dominate the conversation.

Natural Dialogue Flow: Crafting a dialogue that felt natural and conversational, despite being constructed from synthesized sources and guided by pre-determined questions, required careful attention to sentence structure, word choice, and transitions. We aimed to create a sense of spontaneity and realism, even though the conversation was carefully planned.

Integrating the “By the Way” Moment: Incorporating Lex’s “by the way” comment about food systems in a way that felt natural and added to the conflict without derailing the main discussion required careful placement and phrasing.

Time constraints: The panel discussion format, chosen for its suitability, did limit the number of issues that could be discussed.

Limitations of the Source Synthesis Method

Constructed Nature of the Dialogue: It’s crucial to reiterate that Source Synthesis creates a constructed dialogue. While based on real-world sources, the conversation itself is a product of the creator’s choices and interpretations. It is not a spontaneous exchange, and this should always be made clear to the audience.

Potential for Oversimplification: The process of distilling complex viewpoints into concise statements inevitably involves some degree of simplification. There’s a risk that the nuances of the original source material may be lost or that perspectives may be presented in a way that’s less complex than in reality.

Dependence on Source Quality: The effectiveness of a Source Synthesis relies heavily on the quality, diversity, and relevance of the selected sources. Biased, incomplete, or poorly researched sources will inevitably lead to a flawed or unbalanced dialogue.

“Pre-editing” Bias: The “pre-editing” process, while essential for shaping the narrative, introduces the potential for creator bias. The choices made in selecting sources, crafting personas, and framing questions can significantly influence the direction and outcome of the conversation.

Limited Interactivity: While we discussed the potential for “gamification” and interactive elements, the current implementation of Source Synthesis, as demonstrated in this role-play, is primarily a linear, pre-written format. This limits the ability for audience participation and real-time adaptation.

Despite these challenges and limitations, we believe that “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” successfully demonstrates the potential of Source Synthesis as a tool for exploring complex issues. By acknowledging these limitations, we aim to promote a more informed and critical understanding of the method and its applications. Future iterations of Source Synthesis could explore ways to mitigate these limitations, such as incorporating more diverse sources, developing more robust methods for persona creation, and exploring interactive formats.

IX: Lessons Learned

The creation of “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” proved to be a valuable learning experience, offering insights into both the practical application of the Source Synthesis method and the broader implications of using AI in creative writing. Here are some key takeaways:

Source Synthesis: A Powerful Tool for Exploration

The role-play successfully demonstrated the core strength of Source Synthesis: its ability to bring diverse perspectives together in a structured and engaging dialogue. By carefully crafting personas based on real-world sources and guiding their conversation with focused questions, we were able to illuminate the complexities of Google search quality and Big Tech’s power in a way that a traditional essay or report might not have achieved.

“Pre-editing”: A Defining and Demanding Process

The concept of “pre-editing,” which emerged during the development of the Source Synthesis Handbook, proved to be even more central than initially anticipated. The choices we made regarding topic selection, source selection, persona creation, and question design fundamentally shaped the narrative and the perspectives presented. “Pre-editing” requires careful planning, critical judgment, and a deep understanding of the chosen sources.

AI: A Powerful Assistant, Not a Replacement

AI tools, particularly Gemini and Gemini Deep Research, played a significant role in the creation process, from generating the initial research paper to assisting with dialogue drafting. However, the project underscored that AI is best used as a tool to augment and enhance human creativity, not to replace it. Human oversight, critical judgment, and domain expertise were essential at every stage, from source evaluation to dialogue refinement.

The Importance of Iterative Refinement

The creation of the role-play was an iterative process, involving multiple rounds of drafting, feedback, and revision. The “expert review” panel, itself a form of Source Synthesis, provided invaluable insights that led to significant improvements in the dialogue’s naturalness, character development, and overall impact. This highlights the importance of embracing iteration and seeking feedback when using AI in creative writing.

Natural Dialogue is Key

Crafting dialogue that sounds natural and engaging, while remaining true to the source material and the personas’ established viewpoints, is a significant challenge. This requires careful attention to sentence structure, word choice, and tone, as well as a willingness to move beyond the literal text of the sources to create a believable conversation.

Ethical Considerations Remain Paramount

The Source Synthesis method, particularly when creating personas based on real individuals, raises ethical considerations regarding accurate representation, transparency, and potential bias. It’s crucial to be mindful of these issues throughout the process and to strive for fairness and respect in portraying different perspectives.

The Value of Collaboration

This project was a testament to the power of collaboration, not only between human creators but also between humans and AI. The iterative process, involving brainstorming, drafting, feedback, and revision, was essential for achieving the final result.

Future Directions

This experience has opened up several exciting avenues for future exploration of the Source Synthesis method:

Experimenting with different source types and formats. Developing more sophisticated methods for persona creation. Exploring interactive and “gamified” versions of Source Synthesis. Applying the method to a wider range of complex issues.

In conclusion, “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” demonstrates both the potential and the challenges of using Source Synthesis and AI in creative writing. The lessons learned from this project will inform our future work and, we hope, inspire others to explore the possibilities of this innovative approach.

X: Conclusion

The journey of creating “Is Google Search Getting Worse? Separating Fact from Fiction” has been a practical and illuminating demonstration of the Source Synthesis method. From the initial spark of an idea, fueled by a Gemini Deep Research paper, to the crafting of distinct personas and the iterative refinement of the dialogue with the help of AI and expert feedback, this project has showcased the power of Source Synthesis to illuminate complex issues in an engaging and accessible way.

We’ve seen how carefully selected sources can provide the foundation for believable and diverse viewpoints, how “pre-editing” shapes the narrative, and how AI can serve as a valuable tool for accelerating and enhancing the creative process. We’ve also grappled with the challenges of maintaining natural dialogue, balancing perspectives, and ensuring ethical representation.

The resulting role-play, we believe, offers a unique and insightful exploration of the evolving landscape of online information and the growing power of Big Tech. It highlights the concerns of journalists, the arguments of industry representatives, and the global perspectives of economists and sociologists, all within a structured and dynamic conversation.

More than just a finished product, this project has been a learning experience. The lessons learned – about the importance of careful planning, iterative refinement, human oversight, and ethical considerations – will inform our future work with Source Synthesis and, we hope, inspire others to explore its potential.

Test the Method

We encourage you, the reader, to try the Source Synthesis method yourself. The Source Synthesis Role-Play Handbook provides a practical guide, and the “Is Google Search Getting Worse?” role-play serves as a concrete example. Experiment with different topics, sources, and personas. Embrace the collaborative potential of AI, but always remember the importance of human judgment and critical thinking.

We believe that Source Synthesis has the potential to foster more informed, nuanced, and productive dialogues about the complex challenges and opportunities of our time. We invite you to join us in exploring this potential and contributing to a more insightful and engaging public discourse.