Yeah like... Maybe 99% (or some high number) would sense that something's up, but end up with the wrong conclusion. Like how an older family member of mine thought James Cameron's Avatar had really impressive makeup and costumes and other practical effects... cause he didn't really understand CGI.
Where he should have landed was something like "My model of how practical effects work can't adequately explain this," but instead, his brain made some smaller-but-more-wrong leaps that led him somewhere weird.
I think lots of people are going to experience that same kind of thing with AI-driven propaganda, even when they notice that something is up.
Yeah... I think part of the trouble though is that even if people recognize that calling Biden "a deep state puppet" is not plausible, many people don't know that it's possible to realistically synthesize a voice like that, so where do they end up?
"Well they probably took some other quote she said out of context, she must have been joking when she said that," or "They must have cut different clips together" or something like that.
So even people who don't fully fall for it can still be deceived in a more subtle way. Or as another respondent mentions, over time, you remember her voice saying something dubious, but don't quite remember where or what. A subtle nudge that can be just as dangerous as buying it at face value.
Yeah, I think that's exactly right. I don't think it's like a sophisticated deliberate psyop or anything like that, but the effect you describe certainly exists.
Most people are only partially paying attention to most of the information they consume, even the smart, thoughtful ones... Combined with the lossy storage of human memory, it's easy to cache the wrong conclusions when exposed to stuff like this.
I see your point, too! I think to the degree that the story is about Elon showing us who he is, it makes sense to just give the dumpster fire less oxygen to burn… But to the degree that it's about AI eroding our ability to understand truth, I think we need as much exposure as possible to things like this while we can recognize them.
I think a reasonable person could land in either place in this instance.
Gotta hard disagree with you there, friend... Although I see the merit in that, I think we should be taking examples like this and sharing them around with crystal clear context that:
This is a troubling blend of real and fake, and it's easy to not notice which parts are which
This is a new category of propaganda that we aren't ready for
Even though this one is pretty easy to clock as fake satire, it's not hard to imagine nudging a few degrees away from tongue-in-cheek and toward deliberately deceitful, and holy shit is that going to be scary
Like I know lots of people who don't know that this sort of thing is even remotely possible, and would have a hard time understanding how to contextualize it, even if they sense something fishy about it. They need to see and hear these deepfake-adjacent materials first hand with context to innoculate against the truly deceptive stuff that they'll be exposed to.
Oh, I actually was able to see it without an account-- Thank you for finding/sharing the link!
It's uh... Pretty much exactly what it sounded like from the article. It's pretty clear to me that it's satire and fake, but I'm not sure that it would be to, say, some of my family members.
Yeah lol spinning this as "backing out" seems like a stretch. But if the headline was like "Trump campaign prefers to wait for formal nominations before planning debate," then it would not drive much engagement.
Pig butchering?