Search

One of the first things that we’re noticing is the sheer volume of false or misleading wartime images or information being shared. These are AI-generated clips presented as footage or satellite images from conflict regions. It’s also not always a deepfake and is often old footage from other conflicts being relabeled by AI and presented as new. The other thing to really stress is the kind of emotional engineering that is going on with such content. It’s trying to invoke fear, triumph, or helplessness. Very often, it feels like that’s the whole point of such content: to intensify, polarize, and

I discussed this idea a little in my book that there is a small set of actors who are largely white men from Silicon Valley who manage, handle, and make the decisions about the world’s most powerful technologies. Allowing these companies to be the gatekeepers of information and truth around the world is a very problematic idea. Within the African context, in which a lot of my work takes place, we want open-source technologies. We need to be able to cut the costs and build these technologies. To make them more equitable and accessible. I think there are a lot of benefits to open-sourcing that o

I don’t rely on AI to check whether something is AI-generated.  You have to verify through context, provenance, and authentication. Some of the layperson clues would be inconsistent text or insignia, implausible lighting and reflections, and weird movements at the side of frames. Look at whether the footage includes a precise claim that can be independently verified, such as a place, a date, a building, and particular landmarks. Treat screenshots very suspiciously — especially those of “official statements” — because they’re very easy to manipulate. They’re not as traceable, so if it’s somethi