The Rise of the Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine

[Skeptic Ginger]

This thread overlaps politics and science. It's not about a conspiracy theory, it's about marketing a message using sophisticated data mining to manipulate beliefs and actions. Given current events and the alt-right focus using these techniques the article discusses, I think it belongs here.

There’s a new automated propaganda machine driving global politics. How it works and what it will mean for the future of democracy.

It's a perfect storm when data mining has become sophisticated and stealthy at the same time the tools exist to market messages to individuals rather than through mass market messaging. But the idea the alt-right has a major player in this game is disturbing.

Most recently, Analytica helped elect U.S. President Donald Trump, secured a win for the Brexit Leave campaign, and led Ted Cruz’s 2016 campaign surge, shepherding him from the back of the GOP primary pack to the front.

The company is owned and controlled by conservative and alt-right interests that are also deeply entwined in the Trump administration. The Mercer family is both a major owner of Cambridge Analytica and one of Trump’s biggest donors. Steve Bannon, in addition to acting as Trump’s Chief Strategist and a member of the White House Security Council, is a Cambridge Analytica board member. Until recently, Analytica’s CTO was the acting CTO at the Republican National Convention.

Political analysts in the Clinton campaign, who were basing their tactics on traditional polling methods, laughed when Trump scheduled campaign events in the so-called blue wall -- a group of states that includes Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and has traditionally fallen to Democrats. But Cambridge Analytica saw they had an opening based on measured engagement with their Facebook posts. It was the small margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that won Trump the election.

I said all along the Democrats haven't figured this stuff out. People tried to tell me that Obama had because, gee, he used the Net to fund-raise. And Sanders used it to create a following. But the alt-right, (with Trump only a figure head for them*), have been using it and developing the science of exploiting human psychology since the Koch brothers first delved into funding think tanks to manipulate beliefs.

*I say that about Trump being a figurehead because I don't believe for a minute he would have had found the underlying apparatus of persuasion on his own.

Think about how far this has come since Frank Luntz' focus groups and framing Words that Work.

An example of weaponized AI:

Dark posts were also used to depress voter turnout among key groups of democratic voters. “In this election, dark posts were used to try to suppress the African-American vote,” wrote journalist and Open Society fellow McKenzie Funk in a New York Times editorial. “According to Bloomberg, the Trump campaign sent ads reminding certain selected black voters of Hillary Clinton’s infamous ‘super predator’ line. It targeted Miami’s Little Haiti neighborhood with messages about the Clinton Foundation’s troubles in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake.’”

By dark posts what they mean are those messages only you see.

Because dark posts are only visible to the targeted users, there’s no way for anyone outside of Analytica or the Trump campaign to track the content of these ads. In this case, there was no SEC oversight, no public scrutiny of Trump’s attack ads. Just the rapid-eye-movement of millions of individual users scanning their Facebook feeds.

In the weeks leading up to a final vote, a campaign could launch a $10-100 million dark post campaign targeting just a few million voters in swing districts and no one would know. This may be where future ‘black-swan’ election upsets are born.

Re fake news, it's not just about slipping them into the echo-chamber, it's much more sophisticated than that.

The web of fake and biased news that Albright uncovered created a propaganda wave that Cambridge Analytica could ride and then amplify. The more fake news that users engage with, the more addictive Analytica’s personality engagement algorithms can become.

Voter 35423 clicked on a fake story about Hillary’s sex-trafficking ring? Let’s get her to engage with more stories about Hillary’s supposed history of murder and sex trafficking.

The synergy between fake-content networks, automated message testing, and personality profiling will rapidly spread to other digital mediums. Albright’s most-recent research focuses on an artificial intelligence that automatically creates YouTube videos about news and current events. The AI, which reacts to trending topics on Facebook and Twitter, pairs images and subtitles with a computer generated voiceover. It spooled out nearly 80,000 videos through 19 different channels in just a few days.

I've been following this stuff for years and that was shocking even to me.

Then there was exploitation of botnets that does get into conspiracy territory, except this is a conspiracy with a track record:

Before long, Howard and his team were getting the heads up about bot propaganda campaigns from the creators themselves. As more and more major international political figures began using botnets as just another tool in their campaigns, Howard, Woolley and the rest of their team studied the action unfolding.

The world these informants revealed is an international network of governments, consultancies (often with owners or top management just one degree away from official government actors), and individuals who build and maintain massive networks of bots to amplify the messages of political actors, spread messages counter to those of their opponents, and silence those whose views or ideas might threaten those same political actors..

I thought it was bad when Erik Prince gained government contracts to use his Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq and later New Orleans. This is a thousand times worse:

It's likely Cambridge Analytica will secure more contracts with federal agencies and is in the final stages of negotiations to begin managing White House digital communication throughout the Trump Administration. What new predictive-personality targeting becomes possible with potential access to data on U.S. voters from the IRS, Department of Homeland Security, or the NSA?

The article is a must read for anyone who is interested in critical thinking and media literacy.

Sorry for being preachy.

 

[Cain]

tl;dr

#MAGA

 

[Darth Rotor]

This thread overlaps politics and science. It's not about a conspiracy theory, it's about marketing a message using sophisticated data mining to manipulate beliefs and actions.

Suggested movie:
Robert Mitchum, Lee Majors, Valerie Perrine |
The Agency

This isn't a new idea.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So, two replies from two people who didn't read the post. Not unexpected. Sorry Darth, the OP is not what you think it's about if you think it matches a TV series from 2001. It's also not about 1984 or Brave New World. But then you wouldn't know that given you didn't read it.

 

[Aepervius]

I have only one question. If those dark psot are only visible to users, how do they know :
1) the real sender
2) the content
3) the extent/quantity

Furthermore I would argue that while the usage extended, the real problem are not the dark psot and other method. The real, unsurmontable, impossible to solve problem, is that the voters let themselves influence by such stupid tactic, rather than inform themselves over various source. Democracy is hard, being an informed voters is time consumming. So people may take shortcuts. The problem is when those shortcuts are of the nature to be influenced by "clinton sex rings" or "pizzagate" (is there any difference in quality really ?).

There is another point : an informed electoral voter would/should only have a look at the program, the effect announced and targeted by the programs, and various ancilliary points. But instead due to the bipartisant nature of the US, stupid issues take up the voter attention.

The article and tactics are only udnerlying symptoms. The real problems are voters letting themselves easily influenced by soemthing that stupid, and the 3 party nature of US politics reinforcing the us-versus-them, especially making sure parties do not compromise or cooperates.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The role and results of Cambridge Analytica are very debatable.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Critical Thinking usually boils down to: If only people thought the way I do.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Critical Thinking usually boils down to: If only people thought the way I do.

If "usually" only applies to Trump supporters, yes.

Critical thinkers actually look at fact and evidence, use logic and reasoning, to form opinions and conclusions. These people tend to be liberals.

 

[Beerina]

I recall seeing the superpredator stuff about Hillary on tumblr last fall. It was presented as SJW-style outrage (nevermind that pretty much everybody bought into it at the time). It would be quite shocking to find out it was an opponent's effort to bring this up rather than some leftists' effort to spoil their own side out of angry spite.

 

[marplots]

I predict a huge volume of "just so" stories from this.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So, two replies from two people who didn't read the post. Not unexpected. Sorry Darth, the OP is not what you think it's about if you think it matches a TV series from 2001. It's also not about 1984 or Brave New World. But then you wouldn't know that given you didn't read it.

When you drop a wall of text that ends with "sorry for being preachy," don't be pissy when people ignore your sermon.

If you want good replies, at least teal dear it for the rest of us. Like:

tl;dr - You know how your uncle gets all angry whenever anyone mentions immigrants? Facebook does too, and is partnering with people to make individualized ads to influence him (and you) politically.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have only one question. If those dark psot are only visible to users, how do they know :
1) the real sender
2) the content
3) the extent/quantity

That's not what they mean about dark posts. It probably a poor choice of terminology on their part. What they mean is, you can see the add. If it were for a commercial product, you would get to the source clicking on it. But unless you went to the company records you could not find out how many people or which people that add went to.

The OP article was the result of extensive research by a team of people:

Albright, an assistant professor and data scientist at Elon University, started digging into fake news sites after Donald Trump was elected president. Through extensive research and interviews with Albright and other key experts in the field, including Samuel Woolley, Head of Research at Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Project, and Martin Moore, Director of the Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power at Kings College, it became clear to Scout that this phenomenon was about much more than just a few fake news stories.

Furthermore I would argue that while the usage extended, the real problem are not the dark psot and other method. The real, unsurmontable, impossible to solve problem, is that the voters let themselves influence by such stupid tactic, rather than inform themselves over various source. Democracy is hard, being an informed voters is time consumming. So people may take shortcuts. The problem is when those shortcuts are of the nature to be influenced by "clinton sex rings" or "pizzagate" (is there any difference in quality really ?).

There is another point : an informed electoral voter would/should only have a look at the program, the effect announced and targeted by the programs, and various ancilliary points. But instead due to the bipartisant nature of the US, stupid issues take up the voter attention.

The article and tactics are only udnerlying symptoms. The real problems are voters letting themselves easily influenced by soemthing that stupid, and the 3 party nature of US politics reinforcing the us-versus-them, especially making sure parties do not compromise or cooperates.

You are merely describing the underside of the same coin.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The role and results of Cambridge Analytica are very debatable.

Yes, I've seen their denials on the BBC piece. There is also the argument Cruz didn't win with their help. No one is saying this is perfect technology. But that's no reason not to be concerned.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When you drop a wall of text that ends with "sorry for being preachy," don't be pissy when people ignore your sermon.

If you want good replies, at least teal dear it for the rest of us. Like:

tl;dr - You know how your uncle gets all angry whenever anyone mentions immigrants? Facebook does too, and is partnering with people to make individualized ads to influence him (and you) politically.

Dude, if you don't want to read it, don't. I don't need to spoon feed people, either they are interested in marketing science or they are not.


That's been the case in this forum since I joined the JREF. I even had a 15 minute talk at TAM about it in 2007: Skepticism and the Media. People here were either interested or dismissive then and they still are now. I'm very interested in it and said sorry to be preachy because I think everyone should be interested. But the fact they aren't is not my problem.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh gee, another in the litany of excuses for why Clinton lost: dark posts.

Reminding people of Hillary's superpredator comments is not "used to try to suppress the African-American vote,”

If that were so, then bring it up with Black lives matter who did it much more publicly.

Typical nonsense. sad!

Look at BLM activists suppressing African American votes!: https://thinkprogress.org/watch-bla...nton-about-superpredator-comment-3f9f81bdb760

 

[Childlike Empress]

The OP article was the result of extensive research by a team of people:

From skimming it I haven't seen anything relevant that I hadn't already read more than half a year ago.

Yes, it's an interesting topic but as Aepervius said the method only works as much as the targets allow it to work. It's just a better try.

 

[casebro]

The media has been controlling us via yellow journalism since the days of Hearst and Pulitzer. Or even Gutenberg, printing the Bible?

What is news is that libruls like SG are discussing it here today a on a site with an avowed liberal bias.

Personally, I stay away form Facebook except when absolutley neccessary. And use an email program, NOT net mails with their targeted news. Google is probaly the worst for datamining, but they give me the choce of not keeping history. Supposedly.

And all those phone aps that use Cloud Computing? My XP Pro PC works just fine, thanks. Windows OS, NOT Outlook Express or Explorer.

But 1984 wise, we are more and more expected to be part of the hive. Those of us without cell phones are nearly persona non grata now. How long before I get sent to a re-education camp, and come back with a cell phone graft in my head? My name will be changed to "Harrison Begeron" of course.

But if libruls like SG sees it, there my be hope yet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The media has been controlling us via yellow journalism since the days of Hearst and Pulitzer. Or even Gutenberg, printing the Bible?

What is news is that libruls like SG are discussing it here today a on a site with an avowed liberal bias.

Personally, I stay away form Facebook except when absolutley neccessary. And use an email program, NOT net mails with their targeted news. Google is probaly the worst for datamining, but they give me the choce of not keeping history. Supposedly.

And all those phone aps that use Cloud Computing? My XP Pro PC works just fine, thanks. Windows OS, NOT Outlook Express or Explorer.

But 1984 wise, we are more and more expected to be part of the hive. Those of us without cell phones are nearly persona non grata now. How long before I get sent to a re-education camp, and come back with a cell phone graft in my head? My name will be changed to "Harrison Begeron" of course.

But if libruls like SG sees it, there my be hope yet.

Your post is a non sequitur. Color me mind blown at how many people in this thread completely miss the point.

Of course marketing is a well developed science. It may even be one of the oldest sciences, not that a lot of science minded folks understand that. It certainly goes back much further than the 20th century. Good grief, Hearst?

It's hard to even parse your thought process there it's so far from what I posted about. I don't know where to start.

 

[casebro]

Your post is a non sequitur. Color me mind blown at how many people in this thread completely miss the point.

Of course marketing is a well developed science. It may even be one of the oldest sciences, not that a lot of science minded folks understand that. It certainly goes back much further than the 20th century. Good grief, Hearst?

It's hard to even parse your thought process there it's so far from what I posted about. I don't know where to start.

If EVERYBODY ELSE misses your point, perhaps the problem less elsewhere than EVERYBODY ELSE.

What, you can't see that Weaponized IA is merely an advancement of manipulation by more powerful people? Does the saying about science being undistinguishable from Magic fit here?

 

[Distracted1]

If EVERYBODY ELSE misses your point, perhaps the problem less elsewhere than EVERYBODY ELSE.

What, you can't see that Weaponized IA is merely an advancement of manipulation by more powerful people? Does the saying about science being undistinguishable from Magic fit here?

And nuclear weapons are just bigger ways of blowing things up.

At some point of efficacy doesn't it transcend the old "people have been trying that for years" trope?