In today’s world, AI is everywhere—analyzing our data, making predictions, and even rewriting what we thought we knew about the past. But the question nobody seems to be asking is: who gets to decide what history looks like in this new age? In the past, the story of humanity was fluid. It was shaped, debated, and often rewritten by scholars, historians, and society itself. New evidence could change everything, and shifting values influenced how we saw pivotal events—from the rise and fall of empires to the revolutions that reshaped nations.
But now, with AI playing a larger role in handling historical information, things could change. AI systems are not just helping us process history—they might be the ones shaping the narrative. And that brings up some really important questions. Who controls the information AI uses? What criteria does it follow to decide what’s relevant, or what gets left out?
Who controls the information AI uses?
History Isn’t Set in Stone—Or Is It?
For centuries, history has been a living, breathing concept. It wasn’t just about facts; it was about interpretation. From the way we viewed colonialism to the constant re-evaluation of the Roman Empire, nothing was ever truly fixed. History has always been revised based on new evidence or the changing perspective of society.
But AI could complicate that. AI has the power to process immense amounts of data faster than any human historian ever could. It can sift through documents, analyze patterns, and generate insights in ways we never imagined. That sounds promising, right? But here’s where it gets tricky. AI can only do as much as the data it’s fed. And that data? Well, it’s not always perfect. It’s shaped by biases, omissions, and interpretations made by humans throughout time.
So, if AI systems are trained on biased or incomplete data, what happens? Will AI end up “freezing” history, repeating the same narratives over and over again? Or can it actually help us see new perspectives that were overlooked before?

Who Holds the Power to Feed AI?
At the heart of this is a bigger question: who gets to decide what AI learns? In today’s world, a lot of historical data is stored digitally. And who controls these archives? Governments, corporations, academic institutions. These groups have a lot of say in what data is made available to AI systems. If a government has access to historical archives, they could choose what’s shared and what stays hidden. This can significantly affect how AI processes and presents history to the public.
Then, there’s the role of private companies. Many of the AI tools we rely on are created and controlled by tech giants with their own agendas. Will they prioritize profits or public relations over truth? If so, we could be facing a future where AI-driven history is shaped by corporate interests rather than facts.
Many of the AI tools we rely on are created and controlled by tech giants with their own agendas. Will they prioritize profits or public relations over truth?
On top of that, the algorithms themselves—the code that runs these AI systems—are often proprietary. That means we don’t always know how they work or why they make the decisions they do. If AI is trained to prioritize certain sources over others based on factors like popularity or institutional prestige, we might lose important, alternative perspectives in the process. And let’s be honest—history needs those alternative voices to fully reflect the complexity of the past.
The Ethical Dilemma
This brings us to the ethical side of things. If AI ends up reinforcing dominant narratives and marginalizing less popular viewpoints, we risk losing vital parts of history. This is especially true for marginalized communities whose stories have often been erased or distorted. Will AI recognize the importance of these voices, or will it overlook them entirely?
Accountability is another big concern. Who’s responsible for what AI produces? If an AI system generates a historical narrative that’s inaccurate or harmful, who gets blamed? Is it the people who programmed it, the institutions that control the data, or is it the AI itself? These are tough questions, but they need answers, especially in the context of historical revisionism. The stakes are high when you’re dealing with how future generations will understand the past.

The Risk of Manipulation
And we can’t forget about the potential for manipulation. If AI becomes the primary tool for shaping historical narratives, there’s a real risk that those in power could use it to subtly rewrite history. Imagine a world where AI favors political agendas, where uncomfortable truths are downplayed, and where only certain stories are allowed to surface.
Governments could use AI to promote narratives that support their interests while downplaying events that are critical of their actions. The consequences of this could be huge, shaping not just our understanding of the past but also public opinion, national identity, and even policy decisions.
What’s Next for History in the Age of AI?
AI is a powerful tool, no doubt about it. It can revolutionize the way we study history, making it easier to access vast amounts of data and potentially uncover new insights. But it also comes with significant risks. If we’re not careful, we might end up with a version of history that’s incomplete, biased, or worse—manipulated.
The future of history in the age of AI isn’t set in stone. It all depends on who controls the technology and how it’s used. We need to think carefully about the decisions we make now because they’ll shape how future generations understand the past. AI can be a tool for historical justice, helping us correct wrongs and bring overlooked stories to light. Or it can be a mechanism for reinforcing the power structures that have always controlled the narrative.