>> Yet rather than simply quote Schumer’s words, the NRSC, the campaign arm responsible for electing Republican senators and chaired by Tim Scott, a South Carolina senator, chose to manufacture synthetic video of him speaking.
Does this count as slander or libel at some point? Surely it must if they produce fake material to give off a false impression of the subject. Maybe not this case, but we must be getting there.
It'd have to make a false statement of fact. The problem with that is, according to the article, Schumer actually did say the words and the video has a disclaimer that it's AI, though it could be more visible since it seems to get partially hidden by video controls. From the article:
> A small disclaimer tucked in the corner acknowledges its artificial origins.
...
> The video has bewildered those who watched it online, given that the quote itself is real and on the record for Punchbowl News. In the original interview, Schumer explained that Democrats had prepared their healthcare-focused shutdown strategy well in advance, adding: “Their whole theory was – threaten us, bamboozle us and we would submit in a day or two.”
The part that's false here, the idea that it's a real video, would be hurt by the disclaimer of it being AI generated in the corner. And it's not a misquote of him, so it seems hard to make a defamation case out of this, even if it feels wrong.
Probably not at this point, because he actually said it.
I mean, it still could be - if the video shows him in a compromising position, if it shows him with a sneer that wasn't how he actually said it, or something else that makes it more negative than just the words.
I mean, look, it's still a lie, because it's pretending to be a video of him saying it, and it's not. But it's probably not slander or libel... at this point.
Wow that's really devious. My first question was beyond the outrage, was the video good? It did really look like Chuck was sneering at the people and the cut was so quick I didn't know the difference. I looked more closely, and when the video on Twitter was not fullscreen, the video controls blocked the part that said "AI Generated". I had to really look closely to notice that.
I'm not a republican or a supporter, but my experience with your request is "But what about...?" Usually something robbed of context, not relevant, or blatantly made up and they don't care. For instance when the GOP Nazi group chat came out, some asked why "The Left" wasn't writing similar articles about people who disrespected Charlie Kirk's death. Malicious bad faith at worst and short sighted ignorance at best.
In the same vein, is everyone's feed on Facebook and Insta full of weird pedophile AI-generated videos of seemingly ultra young girls in swimsuit moving lascively, and then the next video is some kind of AI slop of a fake "outrage scene" in some random fastfood where a fat guy is screaming at the waiter... those seem to be generated just to cause more hatred and pain to people
We are going to end up in a two tiered society with people who quit social media, and those who bought the Meta glasses and sit in a wall-e style chair being fed an endless slop outrage feed.
I think this is okay. Yesterday I wrote 10 pages of documentation and opened 15 PRs in under 4 hours. Spent the rest of the day watching YouTube. My boss said I'm a very good worker and gives me pizza every week. They promised I'll be employed until I retire. IMO, the trade-offs are worth it.
Readit News
Democracy is lost to lies.
Here it's for actors https://apnews.com/article/california-hollywood-actors-ai-pr... but probably shoukd apply to everyone.
> A small disclaimer tucked in the corner acknowledges its artificial origins. ... > The video has bewildered those who watched it online, given that the quote itself is real and on the record for Punchbowl News. In the original interview, Schumer explained that Democrats had prepared their healthcare-focused shutdown strategy well in advance, adding: “Their whole theory was – threaten us, bamboozle us and we would submit in a day or two.”
The part that's false here, the idea that it's a real video, would be hurt by the disclaimer of it being AI generated in the corner. And it's not a misquote of him, so it seems hard to make a defamation case out of this, even if it feels wrong.
I mean, it still could be - if the video shows him in a compromising position, if it shows him with a sneer that wasn't how he actually said it, or something else that makes it more negative than just the words.
I mean, look, it's still a lie, because it's pretending to be a video of him saying it, and it's not. But it's probably not slander or libel... at this point.
Dead Comment
For the inevitable downvoters - explain your support of lies instead of downvoting.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
That is correct. That is the intent.
However if you consider that it is part of the information warfare with the western societies, the end result seems to be different.