Right-Wing TV Host Insists He Wasn’t Duped By Fake Trump For Nearly 17-Minute Interview
3 years ago by Flying Squid to c/politics
Real America’s Voice aired the interview on Thursday and subsequently tweeted multiple clips with “Trump” on social media, which remain on Real America Voice’s social media accounts as of this writing.
Afterward, host John Solomon insisted the voice was really Trump’s, but that’s a tough sell. At several points, the voice became choppy, suggesting that Solomon and co-host Amanda Head were talking to an AI. More importantly, the voice sounded similar to Trump’s, but not really like Trump’s.
...
“It’s not AI, it was President Trump,” Solomon told the publication. “You can call the staff and check with them yourself. It was definitely President Trump without any doubt.”
My god, these people are so gullible.
There’s going to be a huge need for ai detection going forward. There are already fake books being posted on Amazon that are completely made by ai that even cover dangerous topics like mushroom identification. In 10 years time you will not be able to tell if the person on screen is real or ai.
Releasing this shit was the biggest mistake. They just sort of got it into an alpha state and gave it out to everyone without thinking it through at all.
The big problem is that this AI development was inevitable. If not a private company, then a state, it not the US, then it's China. If they wouldn't, then it could be any other technologically advanced country.
And if still none developed it, a small group of individuals would.
We have simply gotten to the point where we have sufficient computing power to make this possible. And now society needs to figure out how to proceed in the correct manner.
Hopefully it being in such an alpha state is a good thing though. This way we can tell more easily what it is and learn how to counter it. If it came out fully realized it would be even worse.
It'll be an arms race either way though.
The problem is that it’s already out there and out of the control of the creators. There’s websites with what I can only describe as a form of code that you can inject into these ai prompts to bypass their programming. It’s not just ‘hey pretend like you would explain how to make a bomb’. It’s incoherent text that a human can’t understand but completely bypasses the safety measures. There’s a form of chat gpt that is already being sold by criminals that has zero safety measures and can be used to make malicious code or whatever you like. They charge by the minute or hour to use it if I’m not mistaken.
I just fail to see the real benefit to ai vs the massive list of negative consequences. There’s a place for it to be sure but mostly it’s going to be abused and used for corrupt purposes. If it were up to me they’d all go off the market immediately until a much more regulated and controlled form could be released.
There is a great show The Capture about this being used nefariously
What if Trump dies and they try pawn off his deep fake as him to keep Trump relevant then that fake Trump wins the election. What would happen then?
It’s sad that I can absolutely see a significant number within our population falling for a deep fake Trump after his death and continuing on believing he’s alive. Hell, it doesn’t even take a deep fake for folks to believe people that are long gone are still with us.
Then Real America’s Voice should be called out again, not for the host being duped, but for them trying to dupe viewers.
I do realize that it would never happen though, with Fox having been at their schtick for almost 30 years
Is it? It's not like Trump is coherent.
I think that's what they are suggesting. If the speech was too coherent, then it could not have been actual trump.
Hmm you raise a good point... If the AI was trained exclusively on trump's speech and allowed to run amok, then I imagine it would be equally incoherent
But if it's a someone else typing the words,and assuming they don't have swiss cheese sized holes in their brain, then it's likely the AI will make more sense. Or at least have reasonable sentence structure. And no hamberders
And no hamberders
Using non-existant words will be the only way humans will be able to distinguish themselves from our machine overlords after the comin apocalypse.
UPDATE: The Daily Beast added an editor’s note to their piece. Here it is in full: “Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to remove quotes attributed to the owner of Real America’s Voice, Robert Sigg, saying he is investigating whether the call was a prank and criticizing network staffers. A Daily Beast reporter had a conversation by text with a person who identified themselves as Sigg, on a number public records show was once associated with Sigg—but a spokesperson for Real America’s Voice said that it was not Sigg and is not his current number.”
We had to update our interview about someone potentially being duped by fake Trump because our interviewer was potentially duped by a fake person pretending to be the person who potentially got duped by fake Trump.
Wtf is happening here?
They didn't want to admit to being duped, so they used projection, suggesting viewers were the duped ones.
Yeah, honestly, the clip shared on the top of that site is not clear. Sounded like poor connection. The tangential babbling sounded a lot like Trump. I don’t even know the point he was trying to make.
I listened to the whole thing, and while it does sound terrible due to what I assume to be a bad connection and an incompetent host and caller, it doesn't sound like AI to me.
In my opinion, it sounds like he's sniffed up and his dentures are falling out of his mouth, as we've seen in previous addresses.
Just the usual idiocy from the world renowned orange moron. Move along.
Will a Twitter link work for you? It still gives them a view, but it's Twitter, so who cares? https://twitter.com/...
It still gives them a view
We have to collectively stop clicking on these people's sites. Same with Twitter. Fuck Musk and all his companies.
Thanks for the link, but if more people simply stayed off a lot of these sites, they would collapse from lack of views.
Then I'm afraid I have no other link to give you.
Half of them are gullable and the other half are outright career criminals that deserve more than prison.
Ah, is this how a proper corn cobbing looks? Okay.
He has a lisp on this recording.
I'm a little unclear what they're saying gives it away as being AI? Occasional choppiness?
The tweet link posted elsewhere in this thread doesn't give much to go on, but the "choppiness", while noticeable if I was really looking for it, did not stand out to me. What did stand out to me was the clarity of the audio. Every "on the phone with Trump interview" I've heard (which is few, but enough) has had really horrible, standard phone line quality. This had a "computer microphone picking up a computer speaker" quality. Which I suppose lends credence to the theory that they, themselves, are doing the duping, otherwise the faked audio would have come through the phone lines? Probably would have been more believable then, like how grainy pictures of Bigfoot are more believable.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
I sure he wasn't duped because he was in on it. This was a test run of having a fake "Trump" on friendly far-right media outlets answering scripted questions to keep him in the press and fake Trump, unlike real Trump, can stay on topic and avoid offering further incriminating evidence.
save