AI Disclaimers in Political Ads Backfire on Candidates, Study Finds (msn.com) 49
Many U.S. states now require candidates to disclose when political ads used generative AI, reports the Washington Post.
Unfortunately, researchers at New York University's Center on Technology Policy "found that people rated candidates 'less trustworthy and less appealing' when their ads featured AI disclaimers..." In the study, researchers asked more than 1,000 participants to watch political ads by fictional candidates — some containing AI disclaimers, some not — and then rate how trustworthy they found the would-be officeholders, how likely they were to vote for them and how truthful their ads were. Ads containing AI labels largely hurt candidates across the board, with the pattern holding true for "both deceptive and more harmless uses of generative AI," the researchers wrote. Notably, researchers also found that AI labels were more harmful for candidates running attack ads than those being attacked, something they called the "backfire effect".
"The candidate who was attacked was actually rated more trustworthy, more appealing than the candidate who created the ad," said Scott Babwah Brennen, who directs the center at NYU and co-wrote the report with Shelby Lake, Allison Lazard and Amanda Reid.
One other interesting finding... The article notes that study participants in both parties "preferred when disclaimers were featured anytime AI was used in an ad, even when innocuous."
Unfortunately, researchers at New York University's Center on Technology Policy "found that people rated candidates 'less trustworthy and less appealing' when their ads featured AI disclaimers..." In the study, researchers asked more than 1,000 participants to watch political ads by fictional candidates — some containing AI disclaimers, some not — and then rate how trustworthy they found the would-be officeholders, how likely they were to vote for them and how truthful their ads were. Ads containing AI labels largely hurt candidates across the board, with the pattern holding true for "both deceptive and more harmless uses of generative AI," the researchers wrote. Notably, researchers also found that AI labels were more harmful for candidates running attack ads than those being attacked, something they called the "backfire effect".
"The candidate who was attacked was actually rated more trustworthy, more appealing than the candidate who created the ad," said Scott Babwah Brennen, who directs the center at NYU and co-wrote the report with Shelby Lake, Allison Lazard and Amanda Reid.
One other interesting finding... The article notes that study participants in both parties "preferred when disclaimers were featured anytime AI was used in an ad, even when innocuous."
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
They're already all liars. And I do mean ALL including whoever your favorites are.
Both sides! The only problem is one side (Trump/Vance) lies, lies and even more lies. If one person is 800 lbs and one is 220 lbs, One person is slightly overweight and one is morbidly obese. You wouldn’t say they both are fatties.
You keep up the logical fallacies.
Re: Good (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
BUT HUNTER OR SOMETHING
Funny that. I haven't seen any breathless Hunter reports lately.
Half the country is sad that Joe got too old, and the other half miss him terribly.
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
You Exaggerate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So sad that you're drinking the kool aid so fast you're drowning in it.
Yes it is
Funniest part is that even though you know Republicans are lying to you. You believe and repeat the lies anyway claiming they are true. MrSmartGuyIndeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You’re suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
But it’s OK Kamala might be able to put a coherent sentence together without a teleprompter sometime maybe
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
They're already all liars. And I do mean ALL including whoever your favorites are.
Indeed. You do not even get into such a position if you are an honest person.
Re: (Score:2)
They're already all liars. And I do mean ALL including whoever your favorites are.
Indeed. You do not even get into such a position if you are an honest person.
For some reason I'm reminded of what DAdams said, that the purpose of the President is to attract attention away from power.
Re: (Score:2)
There definitely is some truth in that. Just look at why assholes like Musk support Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
The reality is there are no clean hands in politics.
You may get into it for ideals, but the only way to advance your agenda is via compromise with the very evils you got into it to fight against. Over time you make more and more deals. By the time you reach the upper levels of politics, you are the devil.
Re: (Score:2)
If we are going to make collective decisions we need to elect people who are flexible and know how to compromise. You need people who will listen with an open mind to everyone. And you need people who are emotionally stable with clear values and good judgment. Unfortunately none of those things are rewarded in political campaigns. We vote for people who confirm all our prejudices or at least appear to.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this happens because of the voting system. Voting system where you vote for one winner favors those who are more visible, no matter how they make themselves visible.
Should we use a voting system that had negative and positive scores and you could rate many candidates, those who are visible in both good and bad ways, would get net sum of zero votes. For example Trump would never get elected in a system like this. The winner would be someone who is not strongly hated by anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
You may get into it for ideals, but the only way to advance your agenda is via compromise with the very evils you got into it to fight against.
If you see the other side as evil, you've already lost any sense of ideals.
Compromise is often necessary to reach consensus. That said, compromise isn't about splitting the difference between multiple bad ideas. It's about looking for alternative approaches until you find something that everyone agrees is a good solution. As soon as you start down the path of "I'll let you do the thing that I don't want if you let me do the thing that you don't want," that's not compromising. It's pandering. There's a
Re: (Score:2)
They should be required in all cases to clearly note when any AI is used.
They're already all liars.
No, not really. Most politicians don't intentionally lie. They do sometimes say things thinking that they're true, only to later have to correct themselves because they were misremembering, and they do distort the truth pretty badly by picking and choosing what facts to present based on what supports their position, but that's not exactly lying. It just isn't being forthright. There's a difference.
And arguably, even the side that a large percentage of people accuse of lying constantly aren't really lyin
Why "unfortunately"? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I think it is.
This only makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The ads don't specify where the AI was used, just that it was used. So anyone watching then questions everything in the ad and wonders what was real and what was generated. Sure, you make use it to make something innocuous, but the people watching the ad don't know that was the only thing it was used for. Candidates are better off not using AI as people don't trust it in general. And this also means the disclaimers are working and should be kept, as they are making people question the ad.
True for some? (Score:2, Insightful)
This will probably generally hold true, but will be invalid for supporters of Trump.
There's an old saying. "You can't beat an emotional argument with a logical one." And many (perhaps most) of Trump's supporters are operating from the emotional space. It doesn't matter how many facts or disclaimers you stack on anything. They will not be swayed. They'll no more absorb the label than they would any fact-check. It's noise.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an old saying. "You can't beat an emotional argument with a logical one."
Certainly explains why religion is still a Thing.
Re: (Score:2)
And many (perhaps most) of Trump's supporters are operating from the emotional space. It doesn't matter how many facts or disclaimers you stack on anything. They will not be swayed. They'll no more absorb the label than they would any fact-check. It's noise.
Sure. The Fascist Pig Party (aka Republicans) have been ensuring they're scared out of their minds constantly for decades now, and people in a constant state of terror can't think straight, and they'll flock to whoever has the loudest voice tell them "we can save you!". Sound familiar?
Re: (Score:2)
There's an old saying. "You can't beat an emotional argument with a logical one."
Yeah but Dr House did it on every episode.
And many (perhaps most) of Trump's supporters are operating from the emotional space. It doesn't matter how many facts or disclaimers you stack on anything.
Unfortunately a whole bunch of the fact checkers are operating from an emotional space, too. They try to pretend to be logical, but it's just motivated reasoning. That's why it doesn't work. Dr. House doesn't use motivated reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
A British comic actor playing an angry American doctor on a TV drama isn't reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is the idea that you can't beat an emotional argument with a logical one.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the person, depends on the argument.
In a lot of cases it's impossible to however.
See my sig. There's a guy here who is convinced the EM drive could be possible. It's simple to see why it would be a perpetual motion machine if it existed. We can usually get as far as F=ma, sometimes kinetic energy, but as soon as we reach energy=power times time, he just starts cussing me out and leaves the thread.
It's three basic steps of high school physics to show the EM drive and perpetual motion machine (whi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Buggered if I know. Every time we get vaguely close he starts insulting me and them stupid replying.
My guess is he doesn't understand that you can't just turn off one but of physics without having knock on consequences elsewhere. However he had now expanded a lot of effort telling people who do understand that they are idiots and he by implication is much smarter. In order to understand the physics he much first accept that he is the idiot (in his terms).
That's a tough blow to the ego.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh it's Angel'o'sphere. Feel free to take a crack.
Any chance of reverse attack ads? (Score:2)
Meaning I create an AI ad, that I correctly disclose, about some made up or even real thing about myself. Run it, and get sympathy results out of it from the AI disclaimer (and people not wanting or able to think).
"Unfortunately" people don't trust faked content? (Score:2)
It is only "unfortunate" if you think people *should* be trusting convincingly faked content in polical ads.
It isn't unfortunate - it's the REASON for the of labeling AI genned content in political ads
Can't say I blame them (Score:2)
Look at what they do, not what they say (Score:2)
Studies like this are of limited utility, as there is often a disconnect between what people say and what they actually do.
Moreover, party allegiances are likely to override any negative inferences, and cause people to rationalize their choice despite their stated preferences or values.
Only 2 comments (Score:2)
There's really only 2 comments in campaigning: 1) Look what I'm doing/did correctly. 2) Look what the other side does/did wrongly. The problem is, using Point 1 comments, helps the other side use more Point 2 comments. So politicking is a race to the bottom, where only attack adverts and negative adverts are used. The nature of the beast means those adverts contain much dishonesty.
This year, campaigning contains a new menace: Vindictive misinformation, most of which is currently produced by one si
AI (Score:2)
AI generated content is now equal to fake and lies.
We don't want that from politicians , though there's the unexplainable phenomena called Turmp/