all 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 34 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Of course it is.

Fascists can create the illusions they need to convince morons whilst at the same time making them distrust reality ("nah that's AI")

A lot of people are going to suffer

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Fascists can create

    We really need to get over this idea that it's only "fascists" using AI to push their ideology. In 2025 you'd be hard pressed to find any National Government, Political Party, or Ideologically based group who is not using a metric fuckton of AI bots to distribute AIGen content in an attempt to sway elections and opinions. The IPIE report on this makes it quite plain that at least 80% of elections worldwide had problems with this in 2024.

    At this point blaming this solely on "Fascists" is wilful blindness and a clear indicator that someone is either living in a bubble of single-sided information or is an ideologue themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Did I say "only"?

    Fascists are the most dangerous and frankly, alarmingly flooding the internet with their shit right now

    "Magnitudes" is a borderline dangerous understatement of the difference in their output versus any other corner of political thought.

    Hyper targeted advertising on the internet means you categorically will not be seeing anything close to the worst of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I wish you were right. I don't mind governments and political parties who aren't fascist. Democratic socialists and responsible environmentalists can AI-pump their ideology all they like and it's not going to do much harm to civilization. But if they are doing it at all, they're not doing it anywhere near the level that fascists and kleptocrats are. The latter benefit from radical change, and they are using AI to achieve that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Idk about this. I think the main issue is social media and filter bubbles. Generative AI contributes, but enough fakes news is there anyways. People will also use real riot videos from 4 years ago and claim that's the LA riots. The Russian troll farms can do this with or without AI. Trump, too. They'll just come up with drinking bleach is good with their own brains.

    I don't want to refute this. Generative AI accelerates it immensely and makes it easier and way more. But mind that the core of the problem is society, education and most of all social media.

    Also this isn't exactly new, we had Cambridge Analytica since 2014 or something. And manipulating elections and politics by technology is even older than that.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Atoada so. I fuckin atoadaso.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago* (11 children)

    Yea so let's alienate the left against it while the right embraces it. Fucking brilliant guys. Or or or maybe let's keep spreading reasons the left should hate instead of embrace it so that we allow laws which leave it absolutely gutless for us but still has all the power and features for them to use against us. Then we can get more content from starving artist charging $100 monthly patrons to their Garfield clone webcomic while the right keep winning public opinion and elections and taking away our rights.

    Let's see how that plays out cotton.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Please circle the big flaw in your response. The rest of the class will wait.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    How's that Republican presidency and supreme court.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Again. Read your comment. Where's your flaw. What did I say and what are you saying? You'll see the issue real quick if you're honest

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Take this another way then. You toadaso what? That AI is bad?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    ah, better response.

    that unrestrained implementation of such dangerous tech would be implemented in nefarious ways.

    Super useful. super dangerous. needs to be implemented with extreme safety rails.

    the tool aint bad, people are

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Oh yea? Nefarious? So it's a pretty powerful tool. Bad people will get regardless. And you're building a narrative among your peers that they need to alienate themselves from it. So what I said is spot on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Youngster, you're very bad at a this.

    No. You don't have a clue what you're saying and still arguing a point that was never made by me.

    Please. Stay focused. If you're anti trump we aren't enemies. If your pro trunk we have issues.

    That is all that matters until we are done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    You're the one not understanding here.

    It's not all that matters.

    My point is the left as a group is alienating and isolating themselves from modern tools that the right are utilizing to gain advantageous.

    They alienate themselves from these tools by making the same virtuosity grand standing about the evils of AI.

    I understand you're saying it's the people using it. To me that is still just driving a wedge in that it creates an attitude that AI is not something the right should adopt since it's a nefarious tool and only people who are bad or nefarious themselves could use a nefarious tool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I never said anything other than unregulated growth and use would be used for nefarious purposes

    Hopefully That's not a controversial stance? But everything else is your projection

    Good evening

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Is your argument that we should use generative AI to mislead people? To make fake videos and images and such to use as "proof"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    No my argument is we should make more content and have greater presence digitally instead of allowing the right wing groups like heritage foundation, TPUSA, prageru, project Veritas, ADF, Liberty foundation to capture and engage people while we sit back and complain in the smallest corners online.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Maybe people need to learn to not suck as bad, check their sources, ask questions like how do I know this is true?

    Basic shit we should have learned long before we reach adulthood? 🤷

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The NUMBER FUCKING 1 RULE when we first got online. That all the normals repeated over and over and over. Then the se ond they get social media all that shit was flushed like a morning turd.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    It is clear. AI is poison and pollution.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Oh wow! The incredibly easy and obvious prediction has come true?!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    but...but... lemmy is far too small for such companies paid to post these things to go after. it would cost too much more for them to just type in a few more urls to post to, so it's ok, there's none on lemmy.

    but...but... reddit is far too big for such companies to go after, they wouldn't dare. reddit admins/mods would catch it and block the users.

    but...but... facebook wouldn't have such content because meta has so much money they can build like reverse AI that would find it and they'd be able to automatically detect it and remove it.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I read a scifi book where this was a plot line. I think everyone just distrusted whatever they read online eventually. Time to touch grass?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Liberal democracy was always a race of who could buy the biggest megaphone. Now they are worried that AI is making it even easier to fling shit and spin lies. Nothing however breaks because of AI, it was all about as dysfunctional as it could get before. What NYT and other legacy media is mostly worried about is that with AI psyops and fake news is becoming more and more democratized instead of an expensive top-down ordeal and for making harder for anybody to trust anything anymore, a trust that they relied on to control the narrative.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Nothing however breaks because of AI

    The trajectory is the same, but AI put more gas in the tank in a machine that one might have assumed had reached its limits a decade ago when outsourcing had played itself out.

    What NYT and other legacy media is mostly worried about is that with AI psyops and fake news is becoming more and more democratized instead of an expensive top-down ordeal and for making harder for anybody to trust anything anymore, a trust that they relied on to control the narrative.

    I think you've got it a bit backwards. The NYT operates as a paper of record in large part because it emits a signal that echoes through downstream media. And that stems from the general trust the paper has cultivated (undeserved trust, but welcome to the dictatorship of the bourgeois, folks).

    The implementation of AI as a system of record is replacing the NYT as a trustworthy source, in part because the NYT has finally degraded its own credibility. And in part because why would I go fight with a bunch of paywalls and pop-ups and ad banners on the NYT when I can (seemingly) get the same information from a nice clean OpenAI / Gemini / Deepseek prompt.

    The expense of setting up a system of record is still enormous. The catch is that the AI companies have more money to propagandize their own reputation. Meanwhile, the NYT and the WaPo and the cable news channels have been suffocating in comparative obscurity when they weren't outright touting AI venues as alternatives to themselves.

    News isn't being democratized. Its as horded as ever. These older outlets have simply become vectors to send people to the new and far more efficient Consent Manufacturing Machines.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    oh my goodness. who could have seen this coming.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Don't blame AI for human failings. This is on humans, not machines.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago

    its too bad half the population is borderline mentally retarded and even the majority of the other half think theyre immune to propaganda and too smart to fall for disinformation.

  • source
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Let AI run the government.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • 3 comments in c/nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz view that post
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I'm honestly thinking that the only answer to AI misinformation slop is misinformation about everything. Republicans post misinformation slop like there is no tomorrow. Do the same thing back. It's quick, easy, cheap. Keep AI videos coming about how immigrants are saving puppies in the US or something.

    It'll grind the internet to a point where almost everything is lies and bullshit and there will only be a very few places left where actual useful information can be found (hello Wikipedia!). This'll happen anyway but this will speed up the process.

    With this, soon enough nobody will believe anything anymore. It's sad that we're there but that's the world we live in now.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What’s “Democracy”? I don’t know her.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment