Candidates have always been ready to play fast and loose with reality, only too happy to accuse their opponents of having lost their grip on it. Now, however, the reality stakes have suddenly got a lot higher than the true cost of promises. Artificial intelligence is robbing the electorate of the ability to determine what is real and what is not.
Last week an attack ad was released by the right-wing lobby group, the Taxpayers’ Union, depicting Labour leader Chris Hipkins as a home-invading thief. It showed him kicking down doors, frightening an elderly woman, shocking children as he disrupts a family dinner, and stealing fistfuls of cash.
NewstalkZB’s Heather de Plessis-Allan, a steadfast observer of Keep Right signs, thought the ad was “brilliant”. Her Canterbury NewstalkZB stablemate John MacDonald, on the other hand, found the ad “disturbing” because it was authentic enough to trigger adverse psychological reactions in anyone who had been subjected to a home invasion. Their NZME colleague, Shayne Currie, wrote in his Media Insider column that the ad was “part of an increasingly personal and somewhat hostile election campaign”. However, he said on Ryan Bridge Today that, of course, it was labelled as AI and was “plainly satire”. Across on RNZ, political scientist Claire Robinson told Guyon Espiner it was “confronting” and clearly was not satire because it was devoid of humour and commentary.
Claire Robinson raised the issue of the ad’s AI disclaimer and questioned whether it was some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card (my words). The ad contained this written disclaimer: “The following is an AI-generated fictional dramatisation. It is not real footage”. However, that text is on-screen for less than three seconds and I can tell you that sitting on my couch watching a 32-inch (80 cm) screen, the fine text passes me by. The voiceover says simply: “This video contains AI”.
At the beginning of this month the Advertising Standards Authority issued guidance notes that covered, among other things, the use of AI in advertising. It advised that disclosure should be considered when AI is used to:
- Create a realistic person who does not exist
- Replicate or imitate a real person’s likeness or voice
- Depict events, experiences or outcomes that did not occur
- Create product imagery that materially differs from the actual product
- Present AI-generated content in a way that consumers may reasonably assume reflects a real person, event, experience, endorsement or demonstration.
The note goes on to state that disclosure does not remove an advertiser’s responsibility to ensure that advertising is truthful and not misleading. If AI-generated or AI-assisted content creates a misleading impression, the fact that it has been disclosed as AI-generated will not, by itself, make the advertising compliant.
The Taxpayers’ Union ad may have complied with the letter of the code but was it within the spirit of the guidance? I think not. Continue reading “Home-invading Hipkins crosses dangerous threshold”
