Posted on 11/23/2024 7:27:47 AM PST by artichokegrower
In an bizarre twist, a Stanford University expert who studies misinformation appears to have created some of his own — while under oath.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The expert on deepfakes was using disinformation. Only could happen in Tim Walz’s Minnesota
It’s NOT a bizarre twist!! Happens ALL the time.
The expert on deepfakes was using disinformation.
Well, to be fair , he should know how to do it best. AI Taqiyya.
Yet whatever could be done about that legally places the mainstream media in immediate peril.
:-)
It isn’t ‘bizarre’. It’s brazen. Brazen, outright, intentional, deception meant to steer away from truth and confuse readers towards a preferred opinion. False evidence.
Hancock cited 15 references in his declaration, mostly research papers related to political deepfakes and their impacts. Two of the 15 sources do not appear to exist. The journals he cites are real, as are some of the two citations’ authors, but journal archives show no sign of either paper. The actual journal pages referenced by Hancock have different articles. SFGATE was unable to find the cited papers on Google Scholar, either.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=expert+on+lying+and+technology&ia=web
There is quite a bit of informatioin on this.
1) The truth is a rare commodity. Always has been. Look up the definition of commodity. Look up rare.
2) It is interesting that the solution is to always limit with regulation instead of encouraging competition.
3) A lie can overcome the truth by repetition. But the opposite is also true. The truth can overcome a lie by repetition.
Folks the only way to change this is for us to know the truth and our history and repeat it often. Use your outdoor voice.
Could have sworn this was a Bee headline
It gets really hard to tell yhe difference some days.
Sounds like the paper was "written" by ChatGPT. Then he charged $600/hour for it.
Do keep in mind that this is the FriscoChronicle. Been years since they knew anything truthful about anything.
I remember there was a jailed author who wrote a book on the subject of how not to pay your taxes. His crime? He didn’t pay his taxes.
I bet that means he thought the court case was a cakewalk or a joke, and the rubes in flyiver country weren’t worth the time to do real research, so he prepared his deposition using ChatGPT.
Stanford U is a cesspit
DHS officials created a ‘disinformation group’ at Stanford University to help censor Americans’ speech on social media ahead of the 2020 election
daily mail ^
Posted on 11/7/2023, 12:29:03 PM by algore
The Department of Homeland Security partnered with Stanford University and other colleges to create a ‘disinformation group’ to censor speech leading up to the 2020 election, new emails reveal.
The Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) was created in July 2020, and consisted of members from the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, Graphika, and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, according to a new report from the House Judiciary Committee and released Monday evening.
‘[T]he federal government and universities pressured social media companies to censor true information, jokes, and political opinions,’ the report said of the partnership.
Emails and internal communications obtained by the House Judiciary Committee show how the group worked to flag, censor and remove speech online.
‘I know the Council has a number of efforts on broad policy around the elections, but we just set up an election integrity partnership at the request of DHS/CISA and are in weekly comms to debrief about disinfo,’ the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab’s senior director Graham Brookie wrote in an email.
The report said the partnership’s effort was directed at Republicans and conservatives by labeling information they posted as ‘misinformation,’ while information posted by Democrats and liberals was largely untouched....
I don't see why social media does not simply require deep fakes to have some sort of symbol on the page indicating its satirized. It would end this problem and we can get back to arguing important 1st amendment issues.
Jeff Hancock is one of the reasons why I stopped enjoying the Bay Area as a tech person. I went at a tech meetup at Stanford and during a conversation he hypothesized we could expose right-wing disinformation with machine learning. I asked if would that be generalizable, i.e. why the specific bias? He began trying to bait me, and went on an un-hinged rant about “Trump’s Lies” literally *in my face* then retreated to credentialism when I asked him for specifics or stop poisoning the meetup with spurious disinformation. His cheering section made a point of disinviting me from future events.
It was about few years ago but it ruined my enjoyment of Stanford computer science for life...
Correct. The problem is not as much the content of the deep fakes, it is how that content is represented.
“For those that only read headlines.............”
So in other words, not really lying, but sloppy with citations .
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.