Speaker 1: Hi, it's Wescasova. We're taking a break this week, so
Speaker 1: here's one of our favorite episodes you might have missed.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening. We've talked quite a lot
Speaker 1: on this show lately about artificial intelligence because of how
Speaker 1: quickly it's inserted itself into so many parts of our lives,
Speaker 1: and how it's becoming more and more difficult to tell
Speaker 1: what's real and what's fabricated. One place where that's increasingly
Speaker 1: becoming a problem politics, especially now as the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four US presidential campaign heats up.
Speaker 2: EI. Artificial intelligence is now hitting the US presidential campaign trail.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump has been got in a series of aidep figs.
Speaker 2: This time. Ron DeSantis is also in the spotlight. Reports
Speaker 2: say DeSantis published fake images of Donald Trump and Anthony Fauci.
Speaker 1: Already, candidates and their surrogates and even bad actors overseas
Speaker 1: are reaching for every tool they can to try to
Speaker 1: shape voters' perceptions and ultimately influence the outcome.
Speaker 3: There is definitely an arms race when it comes to AI,
Speaker 3: but there is an element of mutually assured destruction.
Speaker 1: And the government is struggling to figure out how to
Speaker 1: police the use of AI in campaigns.
Speaker 4: What makes the FEC really interesting in this is that
Speaker 4: they are by designing a partisan agency with a mix
Speaker 4: of Republicans and Democrats, and so across the board you
Speaker 4: really see them deadlocking on almost every issue.
Speaker 1: I'm west casofa today on the Big Take, Bloomberg's Emily
Speaker 1: Burnbaum and Laura Davison tell us how AI is transforming
Speaker 1: and distorting our political reality. Emily, it seems like it
Speaker 1: took about five minutes after AI really came forward as
Speaker 1: a thing that was easily accessible for the political world
Speaker 1: to say, hey, we can use this for all kinds
Speaker 1: of reasons, some good and some really not so good.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're still really in the early stages of this.
Speaker 3: We've yet to see the most dramatic examples of political
Speaker 3: misinformation thanks to generative AI, but there are a couple
Speaker 3: really big and well known examples that have been circulating.
Speaker 3: So some far right politicians in Germany used AI to
Speaker 3: generate images of immigrants that look very angry and violent.
Speaker 3: No one was real, just you know, meant to incite
Speaker 3: sort of nationalist fervor. Here back in the US, we're
Speaker 3: seeing a lot more of that. So presidential candidate Ron DeSantis,
Speaker 3: his campaign arm put out a video that included images
Speaker 3: of Anthony Foul hugging former President Donald Trump and they
Speaker 3: were not real. So Desantans's campaign didn't say that they
Speaker 3: were AI generated, but experts kind of circled and identified
Speaker 3: them as fake, and then within a couple hours there
Speaker 3: was a Twitter note appended to it saying these are
Speaker 3: not real. And the other big example is the Republican
Speaker 3: National Committee put together an AI generated video that purported
Speaker 3: to show, you know, here's the future that Biden wants,
Speaker 3: and it was very dystopian and disturbing. They actually said
Speaker 3: it was AI generated.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this video was really quite disturbing.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: It showed images of China attacking Taiwan. It showed the
Speaker 4: streets of San Francisco with troops marching in as martial
Speaker 4: law was taking over, and those looked very very real.
Speaker 4: The one tailtale sign at the end of this video
Speaker 4: that it was fake was it showed Joe Biden just
Speaker 4: slumped over his desk, looking really dejected, and you could
Speaker 4: see that his elbows weren't quite connecting with the edge
Speaker 4: of the desk. So it also had a little disclaimer,
Speaker 4: very very tiny in the corner saying this was AI generated.
Speaker 4: But one of the things that consumers are going to
Speaker 4: have to start doing is be really good about determining
Speaker 4: what video is fake and what is real. And there's
Speaker 4: always with AI, the technology is pretty good. But you know,
Speaker 4: sometimes people have six fingers on the Fauci and Trump
Speaker 4: hugging images. You know, it looked very airbrushed. Trump's hair
Speaker 4: looked very weird in certain angles. So that's kind of
Speaker 4: a telltale sign if you think something looks weird and
Speaker 4: you're like, look at the hands, look at the feet,
Speaker 4: look at the limbs, look at some of these features.
Speaker 4: They look a little bit distorted, and that's usually a
Speaker 4: sign that something is a little off.
Speaker 1: I remember in the last election we started thinking about
Speaker 1: deep face, these videos, these pictures which are indistinguishable from
Speaker 1: what's real, and the technology wasn't quite there yet. And now,
Speaker 1: of course we see every day that it is getting
Speaker 1: much better. And I guess that raises this question that
Speaker 1: as the campaign heats up, we're going to see so
Speaker 1: many of these images that it's going to be really
Speaker 1: hard to tell what's real and what's not correct.
Speaker 4: And there's no regulation that requires any person, any advertiser,
Speaker 4: any candidate to declare something as fake. Google has said
Speaker 4: that in their tools that they are going to have
Speaker 4: not a physical marker on it, but sort of a
Speaker 4: digital marker, So if people go and reverse image search
Speaker 4: it, it will flag it as something that's fake. But that's
Speaker 4: how often do you go and actually reverse image search something.
Speaker 4: Not that often, So it's going to really take a
Speaker 4: lot of discerning, both from kind of the truth squatting
Speaker 4: faction on Twitter as well as from individual consumers to
Speaker 4: know if something's real or fake. And as we know,
Speaker 4: a lot of people don't even know who's running for
Speaker 4: president right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Just on the topic of regulation not being in place,
Speaker 3: the Federal Election Commission this month tried to vote on
Speaker 3: a measure that would have enabled them to create rules
Speaker 3: around AI generated political ads. Basically, the FEC would say
Speaker 3: you have to declare when AI has generated your ad.
Speaker 3: But they found themselves deadlocked. So there was a deep
Speaker 3: disagreement among the commissioners, not even just a long partisan
Speaker 3: lines about if they even have the authority to do that.
Speaker 3: So the agencies that we have are currently deadlocked, unsure
Speaker 3: how to proceed, and on Capitol Hill they're only beginning
Speaker 3: to have these conversations.
Speaker 1: Emily, why would the Federal Election Commission have any doubts
Speaker 1: about what to do? Is there anyone in favor of
Speaker 1: allowing fake stuff to be spread all over the place
Speaker 1: without having to be labeled.
Speaker 3: It's less about the actual measure and more about if
Speaker 3: the FEC has the authority to do this. So we
Speaker 3: actually run into this with tech related issues and our
Speaker 3: government all the time. Most of these agencies weren't set
Speaker 3: up to deal with issues like deep fakes, misinformation scams online,
Speaker 3: and so they're having to adapt in real time, and
Speaker 3: the FEC, some of the commissioners at least say that
Speaker 3: they just don't have power over this part of the lot.
Speaker 3: There are a lot of protections for political speech that
Speaker 3: is an important bedrock of communication in America, so that
Speaker 3: makes this issue even more difficult to deal with.
Speaker 4: What makes the FEC really interesting in this is that
Speaker 4: they are by designing a partisan agency with a mix
Speaker 4: of Republicans and Democrats, and so across the board you
Speaker 4: really see them deadlocking on almost every issue. The FEC
Speaker 4: has had very little success doing anything, which just points
Speaker 4: to that the FEC realistically isn't going to be able
Speaker 4: to take this one on based on all the other
Speaker 4: issues facing the agency.
Speaker 1: And what about the candidates themselves. It's easy to put
Speaker 1: something out that's fake about your opponent and maybe it
Speaker 1: gets you all kinds of attention, but then you know
Speaker 1: they're going to be doing it about you too, and
Speaker 1: so there's this kind of AI fakery arms race that
Speaker 1: we seem to be setting up. Is there any recognition
Speaker 1: on the part of the campaigns that this is a
Speaker 1: really bad line to cross?
Speaker 3: So there is definitely an arms race when it comes
Speaker 3: to AI, But there is an element of mutually assured
Speaker 3: destruction where as soon as one campaign really goes out
Speaker 3: put some words in their opponent's mouth that makes them
Speaker 3: look bad, distributes images videos widely, then that sort of
Speaker 3: opens this whole can of worms, and so there's going
Speaker 3: to be tons of these kinds of ads, and actually,
Speaker 3: no one really wants that. So there's some internal reckoning
Speaker 3: that's happening among political consultants and campaigns right now.
Speaker 1: I guess they've been coming from these outside groups that
Speaker 1: support campaigns so that they're able to have a certain
Speaker 1: amount of deniability even though it's very clear which candidate
Speaker 1: they're supporting.
Speaker 4: But it creates for what we'd call like dark money groups.
Speaker 4: So five oh on and C four political advacy groups.
Speaker 4: This is a real wide opening for you know, groups
Speaker 4: that aren't necessarily representing a specific person but an interest
Speaker 4: area or a larger party. The dark money groups, they
Speaker 4: can go out and take all these images and they're
Speaker 4: super cheap and easy to produce, so they can react
Speaker 4: in real time. If something is said in a debate
Speaker 4: about a candidate they don't like, they can have an
Speaker 4: image or a video out there online by the end
Speaker 4: of the debate. So that's what we're going to start
Speaker 4: to see this really rapid response. You know, what we
Speaker 4: used to just see with with tweets or emails can
Speaker 4: now be done with images and videos.
Speaker 1: Laurie, we've been talking about how we're seeing this happening
Speaker 1: at the national level, at the presidential level, but it's
Speaker 1: also filtering down throughout politics in the US.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: So AI is really cheap, and so that makes it
Speaker 4: a really great tool for these smaller campaigns that don't
Speaker 4: have a lot of money, that don't have a lot
Speaker 4: of staff. So there's been in some mayoral elections recently,
Speaker 4: AI used both by campaigns to sort of support themselves
Speaker 4: as well as attack ads. There was a really great
Speaker 4: example in Shreveport, Louisiana, where there was an attack ad
Speaker 4: against the incumbent mayor, Adrian Perkins, and it showed this
Speaker 4: scene where it was you know, it was his face
Speaker 4: on a body and his voice was talking, his mouth
Speaker 4: was moving. It wasn't him, it was an actor, and
Speaker 4: then they had used AI to create it to make
Speaker 4: it look like him. He ended up losing this race,
Speaker 4: not necessarily because of this ad, but just a really
Speaker 4: great example of how, you know, someone a developer in
Speaker 4: town who didn't particularly care for the mayor come in
Speaker 4: and create this ad really quickly, easily and cheaply, and
Speaker 4: get it on the airwaves and really make a splash
Speaker 4: with it. In Toronto we also saw the same thing
Speaker 4: in their mayoral race, where candidate Anthony Fury used artificial
Speaker 4: intelligence images in sort of his campaign materials, you know,
Speaker 4: showing packages of crack pipe kits that were sponsored by
Speaker 4: the City of Toronto, you know, using this to criticize
Speaker 4: policies of his opponents.
Speaker 1: Emily, you talked about how difficult it is for the
Speaker 1: government to try and figure out how and whether they
Speaker 1: can regulate this, is there anything illegal about a candidate
Speaker 1: making another candidate appear to be doing something completely false?
Speaker 3: One use of AI that could be illegal, and we
Speaker 3: can remember this is still an untested area of the
Speaker 3: law in many ways, so we're not positive. But one
Speaker 3: thing that could be illegal is if you use a
Speaker 3: candidate's likeness to get money that the candidate doesn't actually receive.
Speaker 3: So that is one thing that the FBC was discussing
Speaker 3: that seems like a clear violation of our campaign laws
Speaker 3: when you are not allowed to impersonate anyone else and
Speaker 3: not allowed to lie about where money is going. There
Speaker 3: are also laws cropping up in the states across the
Speaker 3: country that ban certain kinds of quote unquote deep fakes.
Speaker 3: So a lot of those laws pertained to pornography. So
Speaker 3: there have been some reports that show over ninety percent
Speaker 3: of the deep fakes on the Internet are pornographic images,
Speaker 3: mostly featuring women, and so a bunch of states have
Speaker 3: rushed in to fill this gap in the law, basically
Speaker 3: just improving victims' rights, so people who were featured in
Speaker 3: pornographic images on the Internet can sue and have the
Speaker 3: right to stop the proliferation of those But there are
Speaker 3: far fewer rules about election related deep fakes. There are
Speaker 3: some they probably won't withstand legal challenges, So it's still
Speaker 3: kind of complicated whenever you try to touch political speech,
Speaker 3: but there are clearer violations.
Speaker 1: After the break. How AI is changing the way campaigns
Speaker 1: get their message.
Speaker 5: Out, Laurie, you hinted a little bit before about how
Speaker 5: campaigns are using AI for non nefarious reasons, that it's
Speaker 5: just like become a useful tool being used by campaigns
Speaker 5: the way it's used by a lot of different industries.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so there's a bunch of different things that campaigns
Speaker 4: are using and some that people would kind of clearly
Speaker 4: put into a non nefarious camp. So things like helping
Speaker 4: use AI to analyze voter roles of people that they
Speaker 4: should be targeting, organizing some of their data, figuring out
Speaker 4: what kind of messages would resonate with which voters. Another
Speaker 4: thing that they're doing is using tools like chat GBT,
Speaker 4: not necessarily chat GPT because that tool has some restrictions
Speaker 4: on political speech, but to write the first draft of
Speaker 4: press releases of fundraising emails. And they found a really
Speaker 4: great cost savings instead of having five people who are
Speaker 4: copywriters on a campaign working on all these messages that
Speaker 4: you'd have one person that is just telling the tool, okay,
Speaker 4: write a fundraising email with a focus on democracy, one
Speaker 4: with a focus on the environment, right, one with a
Speaker 4: focus on defeating Republicans, for example, And then they can
Speaker 4: get something on the page and then just edit it
Speaker 4: and it goes much much quicker. The one campaign consultant
Speaker 4: described this as solving the blank page problem. Anyone who's
Speaker 4: ever written anything can probably sympathize with that if it's
Speaker 4: much easier to get something on the paper and then
Speaker 4: edit it versus just starting from scratch. So they're finding
Speaker 4: really big cost savings in that of they're able to
Speaker 4: both raise more money because they're more effectively targeting people
Speaker 4: as well as cut down on staff cost for that
Speaker 4: particular function of writing. That's been really widespread, and one
Speaker 4: consultant estimated about fifty percent of campaigns are doing this,
Speaker 4: but expect that number to be somewhere closer to one
Speaker 4: hundred by the end of the twenty twenty four cycle.
Speaker 3: But Congress just said new rules on how staffers can
Speaker 3: use chat GPT, and the main concern is that a
Speaker 3: lot of what you put into chat GPT can become
Speaker 3: available in other ways. You know, there are a lot
Speaker 3: of privacy concerns around chat GPT, So the new rules say,
Speaker 3: first of all, you have to use the paid for
Speaker 3: version of chat GPT, which is better protective of privacy.
Speaker 3: Second of all, you can't put confidential information into chat GPT,
Speaker 3: which congressional staffers are often working with. So they're kind
Speaker 3: of like making it up as they go along. But
Speaker 3: congressional staffers work all day and night. They are never
Speaker 3: off the clock, and so anything that cuts back on
Speaker 3: time is really valuable.
Speaker 1: Open AI. The makers of chat GPT, they are kind
Speaker 1: of alarmed at the way campaigns could be using their
Speaker 1: technology and or trying to figure out a way to
Speaker 1: limit it.
Speaker 4: If you put in really anything related to politics and
Speaker 4: chat GEPT, they're sort of the standard disclaimer language coming
Speaker 4: up of saying, you know, look, I don't have an
Speaker 4: opinion on this. There's nuance to this, and so chat
Speaker 4: gibt is being very careful with anything related to politics.
Speaker 4: But if you push it a little bit, like if
Speaker 4: you type who are the wokest Democrats, it will name
Speaker 4: Alexandria Kazi Kortez, Rashida talib Aana Presley Bilhan, omar interesting
Speaker 4: that all like the top four or five names that
Speaker 4: came up were all women. Sort of treading this careful line,
Speaker 4: it's not completely staying out of the political arena. So
Speaker 4: for a lot of political things, chat gibt has basically
Speaker 4: stopped cataloging language from after September twenty twenty one, So
Speaker 4: when you ask chat gibt a political question will be like,
Speaker 4: here is my information as of September twenty twenty one.
Speaker 4: You may need to do more research if you want
Speaker 4: something more recent. So it's kind of just clamping down
Speaker 4: and not feeding the beast, so to speak, with more
Speaker 4: information to make it sort of an obsolete tool when
Speaker 4: it comes to political speech.
Speaker 3: They're also putting together something called classifiers, so open ai
Speaker 3: is able to see what people put into chat gpt,
Speaker 3: and so they're working hard now to figure out what
Speaker 3: are the classifiers or identifying freezes that people use, where
Speaker 3: when they're using those, you know that it's for a
Speaker 3: political purpose, And then if that's happening, how can you
Speaker 3: control what chat gpt says in response, they really don't
Speaker 3: want their product to be used to create lies and
Speaker 3: misinformation that they're blamed for.
Speaker 4: To sort of add those. Chat GIBT is sort of
Speaker 4: the big juggernaut and the industry of generative text AI,
Speaker 4: but there's so many other tools that are being developed
Speaker 4: and tools that are being developed specifically for political uses.
Speaker 4: So usually these are paid tools that campaigns would subscribe to.
Speaker 4: But just because chat GBT is sort of clamping down
Speaker 4: on this, it doesn't mean that other actors can go
Speaker 4: buy these tools that are specifically designed for this to
Speaker 4: create some political misinformation.
Speaker 1: Laura earlier Emily painted this picture of mutual assured destruction
Speaker 1: where if one candidate attacks the other and the other
Speaker 1: attacks back, then everybody gets hurt. And in you're reporting,
Speaker 1: you found that both Democrats and Republicans are using this technology,
Speaker 1: but in slightly different ways.
Speaker 4: So what we've seen in terms of the visual and
Speaker 4: video side as Republicans using this more. We saw big
Speaker 4: first video ad was the RNC attacking Biden. We saw
Speaker 4: DeSantis attacking Trump with this. But both parties are definitely
Speaker 4: using it, and probably Democrats are using it more. When
Speaker 4: it comes to the text and generative AI, they have
Speaker 4: firms that are using the text side a lot more.
Speaker 4: That's really widespread among campaigns. This is a really hard
Speaker 4: thing that's hard to track you know exactly how widespread
Speaker 4: it is within either party. Democrats are definitely more cautious
Speaker 4: on using the visual and image side. They kind of
Speaker 4: like to say, look, we're being responsible here, We're not
Speaker 4: going to create misinformation or deep fakes. Republicans, particularly because
Speaker 4: they're going into a contested primary, so they have more
Speaker 4: going on right now, but they're a little bit more
Speaker 4: willing to try out this tool and see how it works,
Speaker 4: while Democrats are a little bit hanging back on the sidelines.
Speaker 3: I spoke to a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee
Speaker 3: who said Democrats are wary of misinformation. There's a history
Speaker 3: there that goes back to the twenty sixteen election. There's
Speaker 3: a whole team dedicated to stopping misinformation at the DNC,
Speaker 3: So that makes them extra cautious as they begin to
Speaker 3: implement AI slowly into things like fundraising.
Speaker 1: Emily, that's an interesting point that the Democrats are saying
Speaker 1: that they're going to really need to be monitoring this.
Speaker 1: Do you think that we're going to have now this
Speaker 1: whole campaign industry where groups are doing AI checks similar
Speaker 1: to the way we have fact checkers.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there is this anxiety and wariness among political consultants
Speaker 3: about how AI is going to be deployed. So the
Speaker 3: trade Association for Political Consultants, which exists, shockingly came out
Speaker 3: with this statement saying, we are against the use of
Speaker 3: deep fakes in political campaigns and we really shouldn't be
Speaker 3: messing too much with this technology. It's quite dangerous. So
Speaker 3: I do think that incre there is desire to call
Speaker 3: out misinformation, to call out when generative AI is being used.
Speaker 3: I also think that a lot of technology companies are
Speaker 3: about to make a lot of money off of basically
Speaker 3: tools that allow you to identify what's real. Those are
Speaker 3: going to be commonly used, at least among political campaigns,
Speaker 3: if not the general population.
Speaker 1: When we come back, what can we do to avoid
Speaker 1: getting duped? So what are we supposed to do about this?
Speaker 1: Just as citizens watching a campaign trying to make good decisions,
Speaker 1: trying to figure out what's real and what's not. I mean, Laura,
Speaker 1: you kind of jokingly at the beginning said, oh, look
Speaker 1: at the handslet's eve it as six fingers. But this
Speaker 1: is a pretty serious thing. How are we going to
Speaker 1: be able to discern what's real and what's not.
Speaker 4: This is probably when tech companies are going to have
Speaker 4: to start stepping in. We've seen Twitter and Facebook come
Speaker 4: in with labels on misinformation regarding vaccines or other things.
Speaker 4: Regarding the twenty twenty election. We're probably going to see
Speaker 4: those start to come in. I don't know that the
Speaker 4: tech companies have They don't have fully fledged policies yet
Speaker 4: on how to do that, and part of it is
Speaker 4: that it is really difficult to check. We see companies
Speaker 4: like Google saying, Okay, we're going to put these markers
Speaker 4: in these images. That's probably the next step that we're
Speaker 4: going to see of each company, because they want to
Speaker 4: be seen as responsible and because they don't want an
Speaker 4: image created on their platform to be the thing that
Speaker 4: blows up an election, for example. You're going to see
Speaker 4: pressure in the industry to do more, but it's right
Speaker 4: now it's really incumbent upon the viewer. So it is
Speaker 4: kind of looking at the image, look to see if
Speaker 4: there's a little tag in the corner that mentions it's
Speaker 4: AI generated, or a screen at the very end of
Speaker 4: an ad that says this was created by AI.
Speaker 1: You know, in previous campaigns, we've seen Facebook, We've seen
Speaker 1: Twitter make big public announcements they've hired all of these
Speaker 1: people who are going to be monitoring, they're going to
Speaker 1: try to crack down on fakery, and yet they just
Speaker 1: could not possibly do it. In the case of Twitter,
Speaker 1: we're seeing all kinds of fakery all over the platform,
Speaker 1: especially since Elon Musk took over the company and kind
Speaker 1: of opened it up in a way that previously people
Speaker 1: couldn't post stuff on it.
Speaker 3: Yes, but we're also seeing tools like Twitter's community notes,
Speaker 3: which allows everyday users to weigh in on whether something
Speaker 3: is true or false, that was already under construction before
Speaker 3: Elon Musk came in. It's actually proven to be a
Speaker 3: really effective obstacle for the spread of generative AI misinformation.
Speaker 3: So if we think about the ad Byron de Sampas's
Speaker 3: campaign within hours that had a Twitter note on it
Speaker 3: saying tech experts have looked at this and these images
Speaker 3: are not real. So if you think about what you
Speaker 3: can do as an individual, it's a mitzvah to just
Speaker 3: get out the word that something is fake, that maybe
Speaker 3: tech experts are weighing in and just spreading that information together.
Speaker 3: People create media literacy that way.
Speaker 4: And the thing too is ethicists are less concerned about
Speaker 4: people like Biden and Donald Trump that have swarms of
Speaker 4: press following everywhere they go and everything they do. But
Speaker 4: on the local level, where local news isn't as strong,
Speaker 4: where there are people and candidates and politicians who aren't
Speaker 4: necessarily followed as closely, it's way easier to spread misinformation
Speaker 4: in these areas where there is more of a news vacuum.
Speaker 1: Emily Laura, thanks so much for coming on the show.
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for having us, Thank.
Speaker 1: You, thanks for listening to us here at The Big Take.
Speaker 1: It's a daily podcast from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio. For more
Speaker 1: shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen, and we'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 1: Email us questions or comments to Big Take at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot net. The supervising producer of The Big Take is
Speaker 1: Vicky verg Our senior producer is Catherine Fink. Federica Romanello
Speaker 1: is our producer. Our associate producer is Zeneb Sidiki. Rafael
Speaker 1: mcili is our engineer. Our original music was composed by
Speaker 1: Leo Sidrin. I'm west Kosova. We'll be back tomorrow with
Speaker 1: another Big Take.