Technology is always a disruptor in communication. The printing press, telegraph, telephone, television, fax machine, internet, and social media were technological innovations that caused change in the communication industry. However, these changes have largely left the field intact in its core values, and, for the most part, made communication more accessible, targeted, and, arguably, better. 

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) presents new challenges for communicators, particularly in public relations. As we begin 2025 the specter of AI presents new questions that strike at the core of public relations and the communication function. PR practitioners are asking whether AI is safe to use. Is it accurate? Does it protect privacy? Does it require disclosure? And, perhaps most importantly, will it take our jobs?

The answers to those questions are currently being sorted out within the PR field along with lawmakers, AI developers, and the global workforce. The year 2025 represents an inflection point within the adoption of AI as philosophical approaches to the technology and the regulations around it become more solidified. Many, including me, think AI is a force for good in communication, particularly public relations. 

The industry has a unique advantage in adapting to new communication technologies with its foundational ethical approach rooted in transparency, accountability, and fair dealing. PR practitioners’ lived human experience along with their ethical grounding make them irreplaceable by any technology, no matter how "intelligent" it purports to be.

However, PR practitioners are expecting AI to become more normalized in the profession and regulated globally. Despite these expectations AI is still proving a hard technology to fully control. Forecasting future trends in any industry is difficult, and within the fast-moving field of AI and communication the task is more speculative.  However, there are three dominant themes that have emerged in the past few years that PR practitioners should consider when implementing AI within communications.

AI regulation does not have a unified global approach 

Regulation of technology is reflective of the priorities of lawmakers and governments. As with any political issue, the regulation of AI has divergent priorities depending upon the jurisdiction. 

In the European Union the AI Act has prioritized issues of privacy, human oversight, and protection of society from the excesses of AI. There is concern that the opaque nature of AI presents unforeseen problems that are embedded in the mechanics of how AI works.

The robust history of E.U. privacy protections guides these regulations. However, despite the outsized influence of the E.U. within the global marketplace, these standards and priorities are not universal. 

While U.S. lawmakers are concerned about many of these same unforeseen impacts of AI, particularly those that may erode human agency, they are also concerned about geopolitical positioning of the U.S. within AI development.  This means that U.S. regulation leans away from a heavy-handed approach to governing AI because it is thought that comprehensive regulation creates an unwelcoming legal environment for AI innovation. 

It appears that China, the major U.S. competitor for AI development, has adopted a similar approach. Compounding the issue of AI regulation is the fragmentary structure of U.S. federalism. Unlike the E.U., which has comprehensive regulations, the U.S. legal system operates through a decentralized framework where states, the federal government, and federal and state agencies each contribute to the creation of laws and regulations. Interestingly, at the time of this writing it is the states that have taken the lead in advancing AI privacy legislation.

AI regulation is not comprehensive of all issues facing practitioners 

PR practitioners have a unique role to play within AI implementation precisely because current AI laws do not address all of the issues facing communicators. It is well established that laws are slow to catch up with technological innovation. Even the most contemporary AI regulation, the E.U.'s AI Act, does not address all of the issues presented by widespread use of generative AI.

The emergence of new applications for AI, particularly predictive AI, brings significant challenges, notably in ensuring transparency in decision making and establishing mechanisms for human oversight and appeals in high stakes scenarios, such as financial, legal, or medical decisions. Given this reality PR practitioners will need to lean into their own ethical guidelines to make decisions about AI implementation. 

Questions around AI disclosure, decision making, application, accuracy verification, and oversight may require PR practitioners to establish institutional AI guides that are revisited regularly as the technology evolves. There also seem to be shifting expectations around AI use, particularly in disclosure. As AI becomes more embedded in technology the idea that a communication is created, or at least edited, through AI has become a norm. That presents unique questions around when disclosure is required. 

Well intentioned transparency and oversight may be harder than we think

The expectation of AI oversight and transparency of process has become focal points for lawmakers and society. However, while the accountability of AI is a universal concern, the technology may present challenges to implementing these protections. AI systems often operate as "black boxes," meaning their internal processes are not easily understandable or fully transparent, especially when they incorporate autonomous features.

Additionally, the real-time scalability of oversight poses a significant challenge, as AI systems are capable of delivering faster and more complex outputs than traditional technologies. PR practitioners are accustomed to navigating ethical transparency challenges, but AI introduces a unique dilemma: achieving transparency and oversight might not always be technologically feasible.

This situation demands that PR practitioners adopt a more proactive and transparent approach when explaining how their organizations utilize AI, particularly in their work and interactions with the public. New transparency issues likely will arise including how communications done with AI can communicate limited transparency, which can erode public trust and, in unfortunate situations, facilitate misinformation.  

The fragmentation of AI regulation and the rapidity of development leave PR practitioners in an unchartered ethical space. The result may not be more laws or guidelines, but an embracing of an ambiguous future. 

Organizations will have to be more introspective of their role of stewards of public trust. Transparency in AI technology may require that PR practitioners acknowledge that answers are incomplete. This means that human centric connections that emphasize honesty may be even more important because a flawless AI system of governance is not achievable. With the relentless pace of innovation, PR practitioners will play an indispensable role of balancing humanness with AI’s outsized potential and capability.

• IPRA has created an AI Chapter and established a set of “AI in PR” guidelines.