Latest / Newsradio WGAN / AI & Political Ads

Transcript

AI & Political Ads · Newsradio WGAN

• 0:00
  Is definitely, definitely close to an election because I was
• 0:05
  just looking at my TV, which is now frozen, by the way.
• 0:08
  Look at that. It's not nothing's happening.
• 0:10
  There's just this kid dancing. And it's.
• 0:12
  Frozen man, he's not going anywhere.
• 0:15
  But before that and, and a very heavily AI produced commercial
• 0:24
  hitting against Bobby Charles played and I've seen it I think
• 0:27
  4 times this morning. It's paid for, interestingly
• 0:31
  enough, by that super PAC that is supporting Jonathan Bush.
• 0:38
  And it's the same, I believe. I don't know what's the one
• 0:40
  that's running on our, on our station right now.
• 0:43
  The one that's hitting Bobby that, that, that one's actually
• 0:46
  from his campaign though, because it is Jonathan Bush is
• 0:48
  actually on that one saying I'm Jonathan Bush and you should do
• 0:50
  this. So I will say this about him.
• 0:52
  He's not hiding the fact that he's going negative.
• 0:56
  And what is he doing ultimately? Well, I mean, Bobby Charles
• 0:59
  seems to be what they think appears to maybe be the front
• 1:05
  runner, seems to be what it's been for a while now.
• 1:09
  And Jonathan Bush believes whether he's right or he's
• 1:13
  wrong, polls certainly are starting to indicate that that
• 1:17
  he's in second place. And so if you're in second
• 1:19
  place, but you're in second place by like, I don't know, 5
• 1:21
  or 10 or 15 or whatever it is and you want to win, you got to
• 1:26
  take down the top dog, don't you?
• 1:27
  You got to take him to knock him down a peg.
• 1:29
  And so the negative ads, he's not alone.
• 1:32
  By the way, though, there's a lot of negative stuff going
• 1:34
  towards Bobby Charles right now, which probably confirms that
• 1:38
  that polling is roughly accurate.
• 1:42
  Roughly accurate, I would say. I mean, don't quote me on that,
• 1:47
  but I, I think that it's probably true.
• 1:50
  So now you have a super. I'm wondering if this backfires
• 1:53
  at all or if anybody cares. See, that's the thing that I
• 1:57
  find interesting. Everybody always says, everyone
• 2:01
  always says that they hate negative campaigning, they hate
• 2:04
  negative ads. And yet the the consensus is
• 2:10
  that it works. Generally speaking, it's pretty
• 2:16
  useful, pretty satisfied. So by the way, if you don't know
• 2:18
  what I'm talking about, the ad that they're they're using has
• 2:23
  Bobby Charles hanging out with Barack Obama, Joe Biden's there,
• 2:30
  Kamala Harris is there and they're all collectively like
• 2:34
  hugging and high fiving. And it's a it's a, it's very bro
• 2:37
  tastic, very bro tastic. And I think they call him
• 2:42
  anything for a buck Chuck. I mean, you got to laugh.
• 2:47
  It's it's it's kind of creative, right?
• 2:50
  But I wonder is that kind of thing effective?
• 2:55
  Because if you're talking about using AI in campaigns, if you're
• 3:01
  using it in TV commercial as the one I'm talking about right now
• 3:04
  is this is the anti Bobby Charles.
• 3:07
  And I'm talking about that the Bush Super PAC is running.
• 3:11
  Does that weird anybody out or do they not like it?
• 3:13
  I mean, I think what my decision here thus far has been is that
• 3:17
  it is dependent on how it's used.
• 3:21
  I think it's dependent on how it's used.
• 3:23
  If you are attempting to use AI in an ad and that ad is trying
• 3:30
  to make it appear that something is real that isn't like the
• 3:33
  candidates says something. I mean, there was a little bit
• 3:36
  of this conversation that we had when there was that ad.
• 3:39
  I think that the NRSC did hitting on Platner and they used
• 3:45
  an AI version of Platner to read his Reddit posts, which I
• 3:49
  thought was creative. I thought that was that was both
• 3:53
  inbounds because it was his actual words, and also creative
• 3:57
  because it's taking something that doesn't quite have the same
• 3:59
  punch, you know, like reading text and turning it into
• 4:02
  something that actually sounds as bad as it is.
• 4:06
  Him reading it himself and seeing him, you know, on screen
• 4:11
  reading it. I think it it carries a little
• 4:13
  more weight than if you simply read the text.
• 4:16
  And that's what Janet Mills tried in that ad that she did.
• 4:21
  She was, you know, having surrogates stand in and read an
• 4:25
  iPad that had the had the Reddit stuff on it or whatever.
• 4:28
  And you know, it's like it appears on screen.
• 4:30
  You're like, oh, this is horrifying.
• 4:32
  Just doesn't really quite have the same emotional punch, right.
• 4:34
  So I think that that stuff is inbounds, but if.
• 4:38
  You there'll be regulations on this well.
• 4:40
  Of course there will be. You know, we have this AI
• 4:43
  phenomenon what for about four years now, it's actually come
• 4:46
  out. Don't even think.
• 4:47
  I don't even think it's that long, man.
• 4:48
  I think that this kind of stuff that ad wasn't possible two
• 4:53
  years ago. I don't think because you
• 4:55
  couldn't have created a realistic looking motion like
• 5:00
  video with with real people characters and stuff like you
• 5:05
  couldn't have done that exactly in the same way, or at least in
• 5:07
  this credible way as you can now, because there's they
• 5:09
  developed enough. But you know, there'll be
• 5:12
  there'll be regulation coming and it's probably going to come
• 5:14
  after somebody gets really offended that an AI ad ran
• 5:17
  against them. And so they're going to get
• 5:18
  together and say you can't do this anymore somehow, probably,
• 5:20
  I suppose. But my contention here, the
• 5:22
  thesis of this talk, is that I think if it's used like this one
• 5:27
  is using it obviously not reality, like Bobby Charles is
• 5:33
  not like hanging out in a studio, you know, like hugging
• 5:36
  Biden. You know what I mean?
• 5:38
  Like I'm Barack Obama and I endorse this record.
• 5:43
  Is that from the ad? No.
• 5:45
  No, no, I just have some random. Obama kind of what he does.
• 5:48
  Like it's like, oh really? Yeah.
• 5:50
  It's like, so the, the the crux of the ad is basically Bobby
• 5:53
  Charles is in DC Insider and he promotes like woke stuff.
• 5:58
  He's abandoned MAGA for the woke stuff and whatever.
• 6:01
  And then they have all these politicians that obviously the
• 6:06
  right despises. So it's Obama, it's Kamala
• 6:10
  Harris, it's Biden. I don't know if a Clinton
• 6:12
  appears, maybe. I don't know, see the ad again,
• 6:15
  I got to see it again. But they have them all like
• 6:17
  chumming it up and it's intended to make you think, see, he's, he
• 6:22
  likes them. He's one of them.
• 6:23
  He's part of that club, those insiders, those establishment
• 6:26
  figures, he's one of them. That's what they're trying to
• 6:29
  ultimately say in the ad. And because it's so obvious that
• 6:33
  that's not that that didn't happen, that they're not hanging
• 6:36
  out somewhere, that they're not high fiving and like that's not
• 6:39
  a thing. I think the AI is usable and not
• 6:43
  going to irritate or annoy people.
• 6:47
  I don't know. It strikes me as very similar to
• 6:49
  like actor portrayals. If you were to get, you know,
• 6:53
  stand insurance or something like that and you were trying
• 6:55
  to, you know, re enact something for an ad or something.
• 6:58
  I, I, I, I think it's not terribly offensive.
• 7:01
  The offensive AI stuff will be like when somebody makes an ad
• 7:05
  of Trump saying something he never said, trying to pass it
• 7:09
  off as something he really said or, you know, any other
• 7:13
  candidate in any other race ever.
• 7:15
  You know, that's when it's going to be a problem because then it
• 7:17
  will be disingenuous. Then it will be phony and fake.
• 7:20
  Then it will be obviously trying to manipulate you and trick you.
• 7:23
  That's what I think. That's it.
• 7:25
  I think that's the trick. Voters do not want to feel like
• 7:28
  someone's putting them on. And in that case, you can
• 7:32
  definitely, you can say it's unfair.
• 7:34
  You can say the point is wrong. You can say that the what a case
• 7:38
  they're making that he's a, you know, like a wolf in sheep's
• 7:43
  clothing and he's, you know, like a woke activist and he's
• 7:46
  pretending to be a Republican. You can say that's all
• 7:49
  misleading or unfair, but it's not like showing you a speech
• 7:55
  that Bobby Charles made and saying things in that speech
• 7:58
  that he did. I never really said in real
• 7:59
  life. I think that's, I don't know why
• 8:02
  I'm going on about this other than I think that we're in a
• 8:04
  brave new world. Well, there's no law these types
• 8:06
  of so they can kind of skirt through around, you know, the
• 8:09
  law aspect of it without having anything implemented.
• 8:12
  I think the next election cycle might.
• 8:14
  They'll definitely be some laws on this and well, maybe.
• 8:17
  You know, one thing you can't really escape, Danny Martinetti,
• 8:20
  is the fact that the law does have to contend with that whole
• 8:25
  pesky First Amendment thing. You know what I mean?
• 8:28
  Like it's, it's I, I actually intended to maybe do a segment
• 8:33
  on free speech a little bit today.
• 8:35
  And you're going to have to, you know, you're going to have to go
• 8:37
  with me on this one a little bit.
• 8:39
  But there is a case that just took him, took place in Belgium
• 8:44
  and I hope I get his name right. But the individual that we're
• 8:47
  talking about in this case is Dries Van Langenhove.
• 8:52
  Dries Van Langenhove, the Belgian court just convicted.
• 8:57
  He's a former MPI think in Belgium and they just convicted
• 9:02
  him for a lecture he gave at a university.
• 9:06
  And fascinating. I'm actually going to I'll read
• 9:08
  to you his account of the conviction.
• 9:13
  OK? And this ties into what you just
• 9:15
  asked me about with AI. Believe me, I know this might
• 9:17
  sound a little weird, but it does.
• 9:18
  OK. So here's here's his description
• 9:21
  of what happened in the case and it's accurate.
• 9:23
  By the way, I looked into this. This is actually this.
• 9:25
  The judge said this like the case was this.
• 9:28
  I mean this is what it really was.
• 9:29
  So in February 2024, this is him speaking.
• 9:33
  I gave a lecture at Catholic University Louvin wherein I
• 9:37
  linked mass migration to crime and a deterioration of our
• 9:40
  quality of life. Every point I made was 100%
• 9:43
  truth and based on scientific evidence.
• 9:45
  Cynically, even the judge that just convicted me admits as much
• 9:50
  by writing in his verdict. Quote.
• 9:52
  Even if all the statements made by Van Langenhove are based in
• 9:57
  scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no
• 10:01
  difference to the criminal intent.
• 10:03
  Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false
• 10:06
  information. He is charged with presenting
• 10:09
  facts in a way that incites hatred against persons on the
• 10:12
  grounds of one or more of the protected criteria in the anti
• 10:16
  racism law. That's a lot of words to say
• 10:20
  that he wants to send me to prison for speaking something
• 10:22
  that is true. Even the regime media writes
• 10:25
  quote. It did not matter to the court
• 10:27
  that Van Langenhoeve was quoted was quoting scientific sources.
• 10:31
  The judge Q argued, excuse me, that Van Langenhoeve's main
• 10:35
  message was that a big part of the social problems lie like
• 10:39
  insecurity, housing shortages and lowering educational
• 10:41
  standards are due to mass migration.
• 10:44
  So why am I bringing this up in this conversation we were having
• 10:46
  about AI Europe? Certainly Belgium, you know, I
• 10:51
  think you could name almost any European country right now does
• 10:55
  not have a First Amendment. They do not have the same First
• 10:57
  Amendment protections, free speech protections that America
• 11:01
  has weakened as ours have been under assault, as they have
• 11:05
  been. There's many, many things about
• 11:07
  what's happened with American law recently which have greatly
• 11:09
  concerned me as a free speech absolutist.
• 11:12
  But even with those hang ups and problems, it is still a place
• 11:18
  where there are is a very firm line on what you are allowed to
• 11:21
  go to jail for, what you're allowed to go to jail for, what
• 11:24
  is a crime, what is not a crime and what you as a free citizen
• 11:27
  of this country are able to say without the government coming to
• 11:30
  get you. Europe has none of those
• 11:33
  protections. So in Europe, I fully expect
• 11:36
  Danny to be right. In Europe, I think that
• 11:39
  politicians in control of parliament that don't love
• 11:43
  anybody attacking them and coming for their jobs with AI
• 11:45
  things that are demonstrating their their problems and their
• 11:50
  fallacies and their their I'll conceived ideas and whatever
• 11:56
  else. I think that they're going to
• 11:57
  hate the fact that people come after them for that and they're
• 11:58
  going to make sure it doesn't happen.
• 11:59
  And they'll pass something that says you can't.
• 12:01
  And there's nothing that says they can't pass that in the
• 12:04
  United States of Congress were to pass something that says you
• 12:08
  can't say that you can't do that.
• 12:11
  It has a very high hurdle, a very high bar to try to jump
• 12:17
  over if it's going to be ultimately deemed as legal.
• 12:19
  And I suspect that anything like that would be tossed in the
• 12:23
  trash bin where it belongs. I think the only thing that will
• 12:26
  actually be truly able to stick as litigation related to AI
• 12:32
  depictions, advertisements and politics, etcetera, that doesn't
• 12:36
  run afoul of free speech laws would be intentionally mislead.
• 12:39
  The stuff that I just said, right, That the intentionally
• 12:41
  misleading overt lies. You know, like like if you ran
• 12:47
  an ad that said that I said something that I didn't say and
• 12:50
  it was meant to look like I really said it.
• 12:53
  Like here's Matt giving a speech in front of people and he said
• 12:56
  this and I didn't, you know that that can be easily.
• 13:01
  I mean, it already would theoretically be, you know,
• 13:04
  defamation, you know, print in print, it's libel, slander.
• 13:09
  If it's not in print, you know, you could, you could already use
• 13:13
  some of those laws to go against something like that.
• 13:15
  But outside of that, if you're just doing like a creative
• 13:17
  depiction, if you're trying to make a point, if you have a
• 13:21
  position and an opinion about somebody, I don't know, man.
• 13:24
  I, they can try to let it, they can try to pass a law, they can
• 13:27
  try to go to the courts, but I would be very skeptical that
• 13:31
  that would actually work. I think our protections because
• 13:34
  of the 1st Amendment are very, very strong.
• 13:36
  And thank the Lord for that. Because in Europe, I mean, look
• 13:39
  at the UK right now, they're jailing people for Facebook
• 13:42
  posts over there. You pop off, you get a little
• 13:45
  bit salty in the evening because of the uncle of yours said
• 13:48
  something that you don't like politically and then you start
• 13:50
  saying something on Facebook or whatever.
• 13:52
  Guess what? Knock, knock, knock.
• 13:54
  The bobbies are here. The bobbies are here to arrest
• 13:57
  you for the thing you said on the Facebook that's actually
• 14:01
  happening over there. It's wild.
• 14:03
  People don't appreciate that. I don't think in America how
• 14:05
  good they have it related to free speech compared to the
• 14:08
  Europeans. I don't think they understand
• 14:10
  very well. Bruce sent me a question.
• 14:12
  He goes, Mr. Producer. Mr. Producer.
• 14:15
  Get off my phone. Who do you think you are?
• 14:18
  You know Mark Levin doesn't like it when.
• 14:19
  We oh, no, no, he totally reamed me out when we had him on years
• 14:24
  ago. And and I started to do that.
• 14:27
  He's like, I hate it when people do that.
• 14:29
  I'm like, oh, I'm sorry, I'll put you on hold.
• 14:32
  All right? I'll be right.
• 14:33
  Back. Well, anyway, he he suggested.
• 14:35
  Yeah. Should Maine have a 25% tax on
• 14:37
  campaign ads paid for by packs? Now we're talking.
• 14:42
  Now we're talking. Oh my God, I might have just met
• 14:45
  a tax I like. I just might have met met a tax
• 14:48
  I like. How interesting of what an
• 14:51
  interesting proposal there because for one, I mean, it
• 14:55
  won't stop them from running it. They'll just keep running it,
• 14:57
  right? But I mean, if you want to raise
• 14:59
  some revenue, I mean, how much the estimates for the Collins
• 15:04
  race alone this year, I think that some of them are comically
• 15:07
  overinflated. You know, some people have said
• 15:08
  like half a billion dollars, like $500 million.
• 15:10
  Let's just say it's half of that.
• 15:11
  Let's just say it's $250 million, two $150 million with a
• 15:15
  25% tax on it. I mean, you're talking some
• 15:19
  bucks, dude. You can actually like fund some
• 15:24
  pretty significant government programs in the state of Maine
• 15:26
  by doing that. And I don't like giving the
• 15:28
  government any more money. But if we, hey, why don't we use
• 15:33
  that? Why don't we use that to lower
• 15:36
  my taxes or you know what offset the property tax offset.
• 15:42
  Oh my God, I love this. See, this is creative.
• 15:45
  Yes, soak the political class and those dumb consultants that
• 15:48
  run and ruin everything and and then maybe actually dissuade
• 15:53
  them. Maybe, maybe it would dissuade
• 15:54
  them from running some more ads and maybe then I don't have to
• 15:57
  see a never ending cycle of these things because you know,
• 16:01
  that's exactly what's about to happen, right?
• 16:03
  Once you get into particularly like August, September and
• 16:07
  October, you're going to just go commercial to commercial.
• 16:11
  It'll be you'll be watching a football game and it'll be like
• 16:13
  Susan Collins, Graham Plattner, Governor's candidate 1,
• 16:17
  Governor's candidate 2, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera,
• 16:20
  until you come back from break and then you're watching
• 16:22
  football again. That's about what to be what you
• 16:24
  get. So if anything, they would
• 16:25
  dissuade that from happening. You either get money or you make
• 16:29
  less of those things happen. Those are both good things to
• 16:31
  me. Hell of an idea.