#Media

A single eight-minute video, entirely created with artificial intelligence, is drawing hundreds of thousands of views and igniting a broader debate about what counts as reverent faith versus entertaining spectacle. The video, a segment from a project billed as the AI Bible and produced by Pray.com, depicts dramatic scenes from the Book of Revelation: crumbling cities, a seven-headed dragon, celestial visions, and cinematic monsters. It looks like a high-budget movie trailer or a scene from an epic video game, and it has quickly become the talk of online faith communities and theologians alike. The viewer response is polarized: many say the visuals animate sacred stories in a way that captivates younger generations, while others warn that turning sacred text into blockbuster entertainment risks trivializing profound spiritual truths.

A wave of recent research into how movies, television, and books shape our beliefs about artificial intelligence shows that public fear tends to run deeper than a fear of machines alone. It is a fear of control, accountability, and the social order itself. The latest analysis mirrors a timeless tension: AI is alternately hailed as a savior and feared as a godlike harbinger of human subjugation. For Thai readers, this tension arrives not just in cinema or cyberspace but in everyday realities—how AI is taught in classrooms, how doctors use algorithms in clinics, and how families decide whether to trust smart assistants, online health tools, or automated tutoring platforms. In short, the stories we tell about AI shape how we will live with it.

Ambient trauma is a growing public‑health concern in Thailand. Repeated exposure to global suffering via news and social media can heighten anxiety, chronic stress, and a lingering sense of insecurity—even for people not directly affected by disasters. For Thai families, students, and frontline workers already coping with post‑pandemic pressures, addressing this phenomenon requires practical changes at home, in schools, workplaces, and within the health system.

Ambient trauma differs from direct life‑threat events. It accumulates through indirect exposure: graphic flood footage, viral violence, nonstop war coverage, and relentless commentary. A clinician notes, “We are surrounded by it; we stew in it, absorb it, and feel it.” This passive intake keeps the body’s stress systems activated, causing sleep disruption and a persistent sense of helplessness, even when personal danger is absent. Because this exposure is population‑level, responses must involve communities and policy, not only individual therapy.

A viral compilation highlighting seven examples of old-age advice that feels out of touch has sparked global conversations about evolving economic, technological, and social realities. The debate goes beyond culture, touching housing, employment, education, and mental health. For Thai readers, the tension echoes scenes from Bangkok apartments to university campuses in Chiang Mai, where traditional expectations meet today’s higher costs and changing work lives. Data on housing, jobs, and education show that younger generations’ responses—often labeled as entitled or impractical—are rational reactions to real economic shifts.

A new Eurostat release from July 2025 shows daily online activity is nearly universal among young Europeans. Ninety-seven percent of people aged 16–29 in the EU now use the internet every day, up from 87% ten years ago. The shift underscores how digital life has become central to education, work, and culture, and it provides a reference point for Thailand’s own digital transformation.

For Thai policymakers and educators, the data emphasize the internet’s role in shaping youth development. Daily connectivity is now an expectation rather than a luxury, particularly in urban areas. Overall EU internet use has climbed from 63% in 2014 to 88% today, illustrating a new norm of digital engagement that Thailand is approaching, though rural communities still face gaps.

Availability bias shapes everyday decisions in Thailand, from schooling choices to health care and commuting during the rainy season. People tend to rely on information that is easiest to recall rather than the most relevant data. This mental shortcut, also known as the availability heuristic, influences judgment in subtle and powerful ways.

When Thai news repeatedly highlights certain events, like dengue outbreaks, parents may overestimate their child’s risk even if local numbers show a lower incidence. Such shortcuts help in routine tasks but can produce systematic errors in judgment.

Confirmation bias, a deeply rooted psychological phenomenon, explains why we tend to focus on information that agrees with our pre-existing beliefs and ignore or discredit evidence that challenges them. In everyday life, this invisible force shapes not only our individual decisions but also the way Thai society interprets news, politics, and even the stories we tell ourselves about our health and well-being. The significance of understanding confirmation bias is becoming increasingly clear in an era where information is abundant but polarization is rising, both globally and in Thailand.

Every day, people in Thailand—like in many countries—make decisions, big and small, often based on the information that comes most readily to mind. Whether it’s choosing a school, selecting healthcare options, or even deciding which road to take during rainy season, human judgment is rarely as objective as we might assume. One powerful but often unnoticed force at play is “availability bias,” a psychological phenomenon that shapes thinking and behavior based on the information most easily recalled, rather than all relevant facts [Simply Psychology], [Encyclopedia Britannica].

Confirmation bias makes people seek and remember information that fits their preconceptions, while discounting evidence that contradicts them. For Thai audiences, this invisible force shapes how we read health guidance, politics, and daily news in a crowded information landscape. Understanding it is crucial as Thailand embraces rapid digital change and growing polarization.

At a basic level, confirmation bias means we look for supporting evidence, interpret ambiguous data to fit our views, and recall memories that reinforce our beliefs. Decades of research show the brain prioritizes consistency over objective truth, influencing judgments in health, law, and public discourse. In fast-moving information environments, these tendencies can distort how we interpret new health advisories or political developments.