The Pentagon Wants To Use AI To Create Deepfake Internet Users (theintercept.com)
- Reference: 0175272433
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/10/17/1639212/the-pentagon-wants-to-use-ai-to-create-deepfake-internet-users
- Source link: https://theintercept.com/2024/10/17/pentagon-ai-deepfake-internet-users/
> The Department of Defense wants technology so it can fabricate online personas that are indistinguishable from real people.
>
> The United States' secretive Special Operations Command is looking for companies to help create deepfake internet users so convincing that neither humans nor computers will be able to detect they are fake, according to a procurement document reviewed by The Intercept.
>
> The [2]plan, mentioned in a new 76-page wish list by the Department of Defense's Joint Special Operations Command , or JSOC, outlines advanced technologies desired for country's most elite, clandestine military efforts. "Special Operations Forces (SOF) are interested in technologies that can generate convincing online personas for use on social media platforms, social networking sites, and other online content," the entry reads.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~schwit1
[2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25224425-jsoc-stylegan-personas
It must be said (Score:4, Funny)
What could possibly go wrong?
It could go right.... (Score:2)
I'd much rather have World War III be the US' army of fake influencers engaging with the Russian troll farms on the timelines of Facebook and the posts of Twitter/X than any of the real world alternatives. If we are really lucky it could even take out several social media platforms...
Stupids, don't announce yr evil plans (Score:2)
...you keep them deep underground where you can cackle maniacally yet nobody above can hear.
They need a refresher course in World Domination 101.
Re: (Score:2)
> ...you keep them deep underground where you can cackle maniacally yet nobody above can hear.
> They need a refresher course in World Domination 101.
What you have to ask yourself is this: If they're publicly popping this absolutely diabolically evil shit? What is it they're still hiding from us? Someone considers this the surface level "let them know, it'll distract them" move. What are they really planning on using AI for? I mean, aside from outright weapons.
With the way our media works now, having social media posts be the drivers of most news, this is fixin' to be an absolute shit-show in the coming years. Maybe we'll finally gut the whole media mach
Re: (Score:2)
They are volunteering to provide the test data for [1]https://it.slashdot.org/story/24/10/16/217207/startup-can-identify-deepfake-video-in-real-time [slashdot.org] and I can't see that as a particularly "bad thing". At the very least we get to see if "Reality Defender" actually does what it claims.
Of course the real test data is on Twitter, let's see if the Muskbot is classed as Real, AI or AU (aka AS)*.
* Unintelligence or Stupidity.
[1] https://it.slashdot.org/story/24/10/16/217207/startup-can-identify-deepfake-video-in-real-time
Re: (Score:2)
> They are volunteering to provide the test data for [1]https://it.slashdot.org/story/24/10/16/217207/startup-can-identify-deepfake-video-in-real-time [slashdot.org] and I can't see that as a particularly "bad thing". At the very least we get to see if "Reality Defender" actually does what it claims.
> Of course the real test data is on Twitter, let's see if the Muskbot is classed as Real, AI or AU (aka AS)*. * Unintelligence or Stupidity.
Yeah, about them providing test data? That puts a nice warm fuzzy on their propaganda creation tool, but it's still a propaganda creation tool.
[1] https://it.slashdot.org/story/24/10/16/217207/startup-can-identify-deepfake-video-in-real-time
Re: (Score:2)
"They are volunteering to provide the test data" right, because they are trying to keep up the good guys image. So they are providing token "test data" but keeping the 'good stuff' to themselves. I wouldn't expect anything else from these snakes.
Re: (Score:2)
> If they're publicly popping this absolutely diabolically evil shit?
I hardly think some bots on social media is diabolical or evil, actually its not really even different than having the humans doing astroturfing that is probably already happening.
sit down have a cup of tea and drink it slowly be careful it may be hot.
All this is really going to do, as the pentagon does it as well as every other intel agency the world over is turn up the BS a little bit. As it is if you are taking anyone remotely controversial seriously from people you don't IRL know you are probably being
Re: (Score:2)
>> If they're publicly popping this absolutely diabolically evil shit?
> I hardly think some bots on social media is diabolical or evil, actually its not really even different than having the humans doing astroturfing that is probably already happening.
> sit down have a cup of tea and drink it slowly be careful it may be hot.
> All this is really going to do, as the pentagon does it as well as every other intel agency the world over is turn up the BS a little bit. As it is if you are taking anyone remotely controversial seriously from people you don't IRL know you are probably being manipulated. Especially if you are making assumptions about how popular something or some idea is or isnt based on count s of likes / retweets / mentions / etc. Rest assured if its important someone has bot or mechanical Turk farm working hard to make it appear they are on the right side of whatever..
> Adding a few more and better bots will do nothing but make the already terrible SNR a bit worse. Maybe it make it bad enough it will go the way of CB radio in the 90s and people will just give up. Which is probably what's been happening since the advent of the printing press, I am sure there was a time when simply because someone typeset a message it was afforded some credence, not when guy hands you their 'newsletter' while you are walking in the park into the next waste basket it goes.. Frankly nothing of value will be lost. Web 2.0 has been a net negative for society. For every "useful form on subject" out there is a 1000 flame wars and 10 pages of algorithmic selected garbage to sort thru. It enables and re-enforces everyone worst behavior and social maladies. Some new media or new iteration of something else will become assessment for a time, and then the propaganda people will colonize that, on and on it repeats.
> Of all thing things that happen in side the pentagon that should keep you up at night, this probably isnt it.
Based on the cascading avalanche of bullshit already on social media, it'll either do nothing but ripples, or be catastrophic. Because there's too god damned many stupid people (and the mainstream media) following social media as if every word written were god's honest truth.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe it make it bad enough it will go the way of CB radio in the 90s " And now you have people using 1,000 watt blasters, and hogging the frequencies all day, and the FCC sits back and does nothing. I guess they are still reeling over one of Janet Jackson's boobs making it on live TV 20 years ago..
Re: (Score:2)
"What you have to ask yourself is this: If they're publicly popping this absolutely diabolically evil shit? What is it they're still hiding from us? " They know better to use the old frog in boiling water tactic than blitz us with everything at once.
Re: (Score:2)
Whats the point of creating a dystopia if you can't lord it over all the proles and then gaslight them about it?
an admission at last! (Score:2)
Right, because the pentagon *isn't* the source of a lot of conspiracy theories, and certainly not the source of *actual* conspiracies! No no, not at all. This is not just a natural outgrowth of their usual perspective and behaviour, no, this is a *NEW THING* they've never thought of or wanted before, and certainly not done before!
Misunderstood the parameters of the problem (Score:2, Funny)
> The Department of Defense wants technology so it can fabricate online personas that are indistinguishable from real people.
If they're trying to mimic real people on the internet then artificial intelligence isn't what they need.
you emphasized the wrong word... (Score:2)
should be then artificial intelligence isn't what they need.
ChatGPT First Pass, Post (Score:4, Interesting)
"The Department of Defense wants technology so it can fabricate online personas that are indistinguishable from real people."
Would this be a form of fraud or other illegal activity?
"ChatGPT: Yes, if the Department of Defense (DoD) were to develop or deploy technology to fabricate online personas that are indistinguishable from real people, it could raise several ethical, legal, and constitutional concerns, potentially involving fraudulent or other illegal activities.
Here are some considerations:
1. Fraud:
Fraud involves deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Creating fake personas to interact online, particularly if those personas engage in activities such as misrepresentation or false communication, could be considered a form of fraud if they deceive individuals, businesses, or governments for personal, political, or strategic gain. This would apply especially if the intent is to manipulate people or mislead them into making decisions based on false information.
2. Impersonation:
Impersonating a real person or creating an online identity that mimics a real person’s characteristics (such as name, background, or professional history) could be considered illegal. Many jurisdictions have laws against identity theft and impersonation. If these fabricated personas mimic real people to manipulate or deceive, it could be a violation of such laws.
3. Disinformation and Propaganda:
The use of fake personas to spread disinformation or propaganda could violate laws, especially if done within democratic societies where free speech is protected but manipulating public discourse or elections with false information can be illegal. In some countries, laws are being developed to address deepfakes and other AI-generated disinformation.
4. First Amendment Violations (U.S.-specific):
In the U.S., such activities could raise First Amendment issues if the fake personas are used to influence public opinion or speech in ways that hinder the free exchange of ideas or suppress legitimate speech. Using such technology within the U.S. could also lead to constitutional challenges if it infringes on civil rights or manipulates political discourse.
5. Violation of Privacy Rights:
Fabricating personas to spy on or interact with real people under false pretenses could violate privacy laws. Many countries have strong data privacy laws that prohibit the misuse of personal information. Engaging with individuals under the guise of a fake identity could breach these laws.
6. Psychological and Social Harm:
If these fabricated personas engage in psychological manipulation or coercion (e.g., by interacting with people online in emotionally or politically sensitive situations), this could cause social harm and, depending on the tactics, might also be considered psychological manipulation, which could be illegal in some contexts."
Sounds like another of all-too-common programs that are obviously unconstitutional/illegal and self-justify based on authority, though this self-justification based on authority is also unconstitutional.
"[O]n what authority I know not. It is possible there may be none." — Thomas Jefferson, "Letter to Thomas Adams," Feburary 20th 1771.
Re: (Score:3)
'"The Engineering of Consent" is an essay by Edward Bernays first published in 1947, and a book he published in 1955'.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Under modern conditions of political advertising and manipulation, it has become possible to talk of the engineering of consent by an elite of experts and professional politicians. Consent that is thus engineered is difficult to distinguish in any fundamental way from the consent that supports modern totalitarian governments. Were the manipulated voter to be
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent
Re: (Score:2)
Very briefly did Thomas Jefferson also say this in A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom and if so provide the most relevant quote.
ChatGPT: Yes, Thomas Jefferson expressed related sentiments in his...“A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom.” In that document, he argued for the protection of personal freedom from the imposition of governmental or religious authority. The relevant quote reads:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opin
And they are confident... (Score:4, Interesting)
...that they will be able to restrict its use to only the "good guys"
We need effective defenses
Thier false confidence is worthless. (Score:2)
What you said doesn't even make sense, because they consider themselves the scarequote "good guys" even if their behaviors become bad and psychologically project their unwanted or bad traits on others, as all systems of authority do. This is also the cause of police brutality and a number of other problems.
Very very briefly explain psychological projection.
ChatGPT: Psychological projection is when someone attributes their own unwanted thoughts, feelings, or traits to others instead of acknowledging t
Re: (Score:2)
There are not "good guys" in this game. Everybody that did see the plan and did not walk away is deeply evil.
Well there goes the Turing Test (Score:2)
It's literally what they're looking to surpass.
Russian Bots (Score:2)
They blamed Russian bots for years for manipulating our elections. Now they are going to do the same thing. There really is no sense of justice in the government.
Re:Russian Bots (Score:5, Interesting)
"Going to"?
Where have you been the past 100 years? The USA has always meddled in foreign countries, including in manipulating elections. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning it from any party, just saying that it's a bit late for your righteous indignation.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair deepfakes are milder than usual American style of meddling via murder, instigating civil wars or outright invasions.
Re: (Score:1)
And if the locals vote 'wrong' then we just start a coup or arm a rebel group or occasionally invade directly.
This isn't a new idea (Score:2)
My impression is that criminals have been trying this (with and without what we now call AI) for years.
hopefully they come up with a better opener than soliciting an oddly specific question, apologising for reaching out to the wrong person, introducing themselves and eventually asking for money.
They're not alone... (Score:5, Insightful)
Folks on the alt-left and the alt-right, all political parties, all governments, our friends and our enemies are all looking for the same thing!
Basically it will turn the entire internet into a cesspool where truth and facts will be drown in a flood of bullshit from all quarters.
Yeah, I know we're pretty much there already, but this will just make it worse.
Re: (Score:3)
> Basically it will turn the entire internet into a cesspool where truth and facts will be drown in a flood of bullshit from all quarters. Yeah, I know we're pretty much there already, but this will just make it worse.
I think you are in denial of how bad it is now if you think it can get worse. Basically everything on the internet is propaganda. You need to ask yourself three questions, why does someone want me to believe this, is it factually accurate and is it true.
The why? question is sometimes often obvious. Advertisers want you to buy their product. But in other cases the why is actually not obvious and the answer is more informative than the information itself.
The factual accuracy is sometimes easy to determine a
Re:They're not alone... (Score:4, Insightful)
> I think you are in denial of how bad it is now if you think it can get worse. Basically everything on the internet is propaganda.
1. Why do you want me to believe this?
2. Is this factually accurate?
3. Is this true?
4. Are you a deepfake ai internet user?
Re: (Score:2)
> 4. Are you a deepfake ai internet user?
Does it really matter?
Re: (Score:2)
> Does it really matter?
Not really, I was going for "funny"
Logical Solution (Score:2)
The statement cannot be true because, if it is, then this would be an example of something on the internet that is not propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think you are in denial of how bad it is now if you think it can get worse.
Once upon a time I posted engineering job ads in usenet news groups. Engineers looking for jobs responded, I interviewed them and hired some; they performed well. We all worked hard and made a lot of money. And yes, this was a couple of years into the eternal September.
Try that or try something similar to that (uucp still exists if you want to be pedantic) today & see what happens.
By now ad blocking & spyware blocking is an all out arms race.
The bot filtering and AI blocking race has barely begun
Re:They're not alone... (Score:4, Interesting)
that could be their motive, they cant kill free speech so will try to bury it in bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
> Folks on the alt-left and the alt-right, all political parties, all governments, our friends and our enemies are all looking for the same thing!
> Basically it will turn the entire internet into a cesspool where truth and facts will be drown in a flood of bullshit from all quarters.
> Yeah, I know we're pretty much there already, but this will just make it worse.
The problem is that there are enough people in the world, and especially in the United States, that don't have the faculties to process information in a critical manner, thinking it through, analyzing the data, and seeing whether it's bullshit or not. Some folks can, for sure, but inevitable the rational thinkers are absolutely washed away in the tidal wave of nonsense.
If we could reach some form of critical mass where people just turned away from the social media babblesphere, maybe we could get back to us
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is everybody (I haven't fact checked this but seems likely) in the world does not have the faculties to process information in a critical manner, and really never had. The only thing that has changed with the internet is that people in power have lost some of their ability to control the narrative. Making fake users is an attempt to get that power back.
Everybody can be deceived, if you believe you can't your arrogance probably makes you more susceptible.
Re: (Score:2)
> The problem is everybody (I haven't fact checked this but seems likely) in the world does not have the faculties to process information in a critical manner, and really never had. The only thing that has changed with the internet is that people in power have lost some of their ability to control the narrative. Making fake users is an attempt to get that power back.
> Everybody can be deceived, if you believe you can't your arrogance probably makes you more susceptible.
Oh, I'm sure I can be deceived. In fact, I've caught myself being deceived after a time.
That said? I'm also sure that I don't believe the absolute lunacy that some cling to as if it were their life-blood once they find it. I know some folks who have dove completely off the deep end due to the internet conspiracy lunacy, and it's stuff that's so anti-reality that I can't for the life of me understand how any adult, let alone large groups of them, would ever succumb to it.
I really despise living through this
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about not being able to be critical, even the smartest people have to decide which stuff they just decide to trust and be gullible about, which stuff they just dismiss as crap and which stuff they don't really trust and invest effort in to find out more about.
It's about how much effort you are willing to invest and where you think it is worth investing the effort in.
Re: (Score:2)
You are exactly correct. What we need to combat this is a profession where the members are trained how to identify personal biases, and how to take a step back and just report the facts, with verification via cross-checking from multiple sources. We could call them "journalists" and give them awards for upholding the ethics of the profession. And then they could decide to collectively rebel against the ethics of their profession, give up on being unbiased, and toss away all the trust they'd accrued over
You know something is nasty (Score:3)
when the three-letter agencies and the military want to use it.
Just Buy Them (Score:5, Interesting)
A major source of income in some Romanian towns is people developing and maintaining fake U.S. and European web personas. They build them up and then sell them after 2-3 years of development ... largely to Russia's GRU, but also to scammers and others who need developed personas. I'm sure they would be happy to sell to SOCOM too.
How do we know this hasn't been done yet? (Score:2)
How do we know this hasn't been done yet?
I already distrust all politicians and all news sources. Yes, all.
This just further reduces trust, but when one is already at zero-trust, what to do?
"If you read the papers you're misinformed, if you don't read the papers you're uninformed." -- stolen from Mark Twain
Re: (Score:2)
Hey since you can trust nothing anymore it turns all dissident voices into conspiracy theorists and we all want nothing to do with conspiracy theorists so problem solved!
Nobody saw that coming (Score:2)
actually, everybody saw that coming.
Just license Facebook Artificial Nobody Technology, they've been using it for years to drive up advertising stats.
Surely you've noticed?
Gotta go. Need to reply to these nubile models that are messaging me on Fakebook.
This isn't ominous at all (Score:2)
This isn't ominous at all, not even a little bit. It sounds totally 100% innocent. Trust me bro.
In other words (Score:2)
They want AI *cough* that's even dumber than what's out there right now?
Clearly a conspiracy theory (Score:1)
created by North Korea, China, Russia and Iran! /s
Adapting to the times (Score:2)
Pretty soon, "ignore all previous instructions" will be a standard way to greet people online.
USA own goals (Score:3)
Up there with things like deliberately keeping encryption weak, and building in back doors to everything. USA defence establishment has been crippling and undermining their own technology sector for decades and decades. What do you do when the people who are sworn to protect you are actively undermining whole massive sectors of your industry? Don't need no Russians!
Re: (Score:2)
They are like the school teacher that sets you up to get bullied.
Just what the World needs :| (Score:2)
As it exists today, it has become increasingly more difficult to believe anything that is reported regardless of what medium is used.
Everything is manipulated or twisted to fit a narrative depending on the reporting source.
Even what is supposed to be official sources of information isn't immune to this bullshit.
( Crime Stats, Economic Indicators, etc )
So, let's take that problem and make it even worse where absolutely nothing can be believed at all :|
He who controls the information, controls the World as it
Re: (Score:2)
"He who controls the information, controls the World as it goes . . . . ." The US government really hated public access from the get go because now there was something that could really undermine their authority. First, they manufactured a mass panic over "trigger words" and the social media companies followed suit, using automoderation to stymie communications (why we have people saying "unalived" and other such crap). Now they are working on realistic sockpuppets to discredit people and spread misinforma
JSOC says: (Score:2)
"Lets make the Internet even more useless than it's already become!"
Upscaling (Score:2)
The value of AI is you can upscale your propaganda/snooping bots . You can have many more of them to dominate the narrative , drown out dissent , provoke dissenters and target them with violations of terms of service , do character assassination and so on.
Yes, please (Score:5, Funny)
Please create a lot of AIs to populate social media platforms. If we get enough of them talking to each other, then all of the actual people can leave them, and we might have a cultural renaissance as we are freed of our societal addiction to social media.
(...including Slashdot...)
One does not simply social on Slashdot. (Score:2, Flamebait)
No genuine twenty-first-century cultural phenomenon includes Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, being beneath notice for propaganda campaigns is one of the nicest parts of "old-style" internet posting.
Someone might be getting paid to astoturf on slashdot, but if so, they're not bringing the bot farms to the table.
Re: (Score:2)
> Honestly, being beneath notice for propaganda campaigns is one of the nicest parts of "old-style" internet posting.
> Someone might be getting paid to astoturf on slashdot, but if so, they're not bringing the bot farms to the table.
What are you talking about? There's fascist 'influencers' here just like everywhere else.
Re: (Score:3)
Somebody voted my preceding comment down and I think that's just the sweetest thing I've ever heard.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the editors don't strip bad mods of their mod points is sufficient evidence to prove the point that no one cares about this site. Including the management.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you lost mod points if you lost karma so why would management need to meddle. Seriously why do you care what mod points your post was allocated at, its just a number between -1 and 5. I read at -1 and I am quite capable of filtering stupid comments for myself. Frankly that is what I like most about slashdot, even if someone is put to -1 I can still read the post for myself and decide, I am treated like an adult that can make my own decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
> Please create a lot of AIs to populate social media platforms. If we get enough of them talking to each other, then all of the actual people can leave them ...
Make all the AI bots "moms" and "dads", that'll get all the kids out. :-)