{"id":280362,"date":"2026-09-06T15:00:28","date_gmt":"2026-09-06T15:00:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/280362\/"},"modified":"2026-09-06T15:00:28","modified_gmt":"2026-09-06T15:00:28","slug":"sunday-edition-slopping-towards-bethlehem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/280362\/","title":{"rendered":"Sunday Edition: Slopping Towards Bethlehem"},"content":{"rendered":"

WHQR’s Sunday Edition\u00a0is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Every day, for the last few years, I\u2019ve woken up and thought, \u2018When will someone here in the Wilmington area finally combine my two favorite things: negative campaign ads and AI slop?\u2019<\/p>\n

Well, just recently, my prayers were answered.<\/p>\n

Two weeks ago, someone sent me a link to a new campaign ad<\/a>, released by Michael Lee\u2019s committee, featuring AI-generated imagery of Jessica Bichler, his Democratic opponent in the race for State Senate District 7. Bichler, who owns Wilmington Yoga, is portrayed leading a session with two other practitioners as they do some basic stretches, setting up the ad\u2019s putative punchline.<\/p>\n

\u201cSome liberals lean to the left, some stretch all the way to woke, but yoga instructor Jessica Bichler, she’s totally bonkers,\u201d a voiceover intones.<\/p>\n

The deepfake ad goes on to make two claims of leftist extremism \u2014 more on that, in a minute \u2014 while the video shows AI-Bichler in a cartoonish contortion, one leg curled like a swizzle straw around her arm, and swaying with an expression that, I assume, was intended to convey \u2018bonkers.\u2019<\/p>\n

The ad also includes a cheeky disclaimer: “You guessed it! AI was definitely used to generate these silly video clips.”<\/p>\n

Pretty quickly, I started getting other messages about the video \u2014 some amused, some outraged, some who felt it was, all other things aside, a novel campaign move, at least in our local burg.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou should thank Lee,\u201d one listener wrote to me. \u201cHe\u2019s given you next week\u2019s column.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed \u2014 although I pushed this column off a week because Lee wasn\u2019t available, and I thought it was important to get him and Bichler on the record about this ad, the political claims it makes, and more so, how the use of AI lands personally, politically, and legally.<\/p>\n

I also wanted to take some time to check my initial \u2014 and somewhat illiberal \u2014 reaction to the AI ad.<\/p>\n

In the off chance you missed the sarcasm above, I\u2019m very much an AI skeptic, and loathe the \u2018AI Slop\u2019 of quasi-real music, art, and video that\u2019s flooding the internet. (\u201cSlop,\u201d truly, is the perfect word for it.) And because of that, my initial reaction to the ad was, \u2018surely this should be illegal.\u2019 I\u2019m clearly not alone, because some states, including North Carolina, are considering or have passed laws regulating and even banning deepfakes.<\/p>\n

But I wondered, can that be squared with the First Amendment? Are some attempting to ban it because it’s truly, categorically different from other kinds of protected speech \u2014 or because we\u2019re reacting emotionally to it? I called up the folks at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which is sort of like a Libertarian ACLU, to test out my gut reactions.<\/p>\n

Nasty, brutish, and expensive<\/p>\n

First, it\u2019s worth noting that, even in the bloodsport of politics, the race for the state Senate seat representing most of New Hanover County (minus the gerrymandered \u2018notch\u2019 in downtown<\/a> Wilmington), has been consistently nasty and expensive.<\/p>\n

A decade ago, Lee defeated Democratic challenger Andrew Barnhill after a notably negative campaign that left both candidates frustrated. But in that case, the ads were paid for by the state GOP \u2014 and Lee told the StarNews<\/a>\u00a0that he didn\u2019t authorize or approve of them, and said he actually asked the state party to stop.<\/p>\n

Since then, it\u2019s felt the race has grown meaner and more personal. In 2022, Lee and Democratic challenger Marcia Morgan burned through over $3 million, much of it spent on aggressive campaign ads. One of Morgan\u2019s ads went too far, very likely into defamation territory, and Lee filed suit. Morgan was forced to admit one of her ads was \u201cnot based in actual fact<\/a>,\u201d later settling. Two years later, Democrat Dr. David Hill sent Lee a cease-and-desist letter based on his ads.<\/p>\n

While both state parties continue to pour money into the race, candidates are no longer hiding behind Raleigh machines. Case in point: the AI ad is paid for by the Committee to Elect Michael Lee, not the NCGOP or the Senate Caucus.<\/p>\n

To some, this probably feels like a top-down result of increasing rancor in DC, where rhetoric that would have been career-ending a generation ago is now par for the course (Trump is, of course, both a symptom and accelerant of the phenomenon, but he\u2019s hardly alone). It fits with apocalyptic \u201cthe ceremony of innocence is drowned\u201d vibes of Yeats\u2019 \u201cThe Second Coming,\u201d with its rough beast slouching towards Bethlehem (a mental image for the ages, if ever there was one).<\/p>\n

But, with respect to the great Irishman, some would say it\u2019s the same weather on a different day \u2014 some of our founding fathers were on both ends of Jerry Springer-level accusations (some of them verifiably true).<\/p>\n

I think, in general, folks are less critical of a candidate\u2019s attack ads when they\u2019re \u2018on the same team,\u2019 but overall they\u2019re still pretty unpopular. And it won\u2019t shock you to learn that, like a majority of my fellow Americans<\/a>, I dislike negative ads. To be honest with you, as a journalist, they\u2019re a pain in the neck. The claims made by a 30-second ad, or even a door hanger, can take days of work to unpack and vet out. And it\u2019s not just that attack ads tend to dwell in the murkiest borderlands of \u2018truth’\u2019 \u2014 it\u2019s that even their legitimate claims are overshadowed by bombast and unsubtle suggestion.<\/p>\n

The claims in Lee\u2019s ad, for example, are a mixed bag: some kernels of truth, some things that seem false (or at least, unsubstantiated). It also struck some as just plain cruel. In addition to criticizing Bichler\u2019s politics \u2014 which, at least on paper, is totally fair game \u2014 the ad also conspicuously tries to make her look physically ridiculous, and mocks the practice of yoga (including a shot of the AI-generated Bichler striking a gong, presumably for comedic effect). Some have dismissed this as trivial, saying it\u2019s obvious parody. But others have told me they felt Lee was unfairly disparaging Bichler, not only a woman and a yoga instructor, but also a small business owner.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a gamble candidates take when they go negative. Lee\u2019s ad is unlikely to deter Republican voters from supporting him, and it\u2019s even less likely to sway Democrats to his side. When it comes to the unaffiliated \u2014 who make up almost half of New Hanover County voters \u2014 who might be on the fence, a negative ad runs the risk of turning people off.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s a risk politicians keep taking.<\/p>\n

Experts have a simple explanation for the persistence of attack ads: they work<\/a>. So, as journalists, I think we\u2019re gonna be dealing with them for the foreseeable future \u2014 doubly so in the State Senate Race for District 7.<\/p>\n

Fact-checking the ad\u2019s claims<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Before we get to the AI issues, I want to talk about the two claims Lee\u2019s campaign makes in the ad. (If you\u2019re just here for the deepfake of it all, you can jump ahead \u2014 I won\u2019t judge you.)<\/p>\n

The first is that Bichler\u2019s campaign is \u201csupported by groups who’d defund the police, let criminals walk free, and give free healthcare to illegals.\u201d Like many similar ads, the video shows a brief reference for its claims, in this case, \u201cAmerican Friends Service Committee, 2\/26.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s hard to imagine what a layperson, who does not have both candidates’ cell phone numbers, would do with that information. So, here\u2019s what I could find.<\/p>\n

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) was founded by Quakers over a century ago, and currently operates as a nonprofit based out of Philadelphia. While the group might take issue with the ad\u2019s phrasing, its strategic goals<\/a> do include \u201cthe abolition of prisons, jails, and detention centers,\u201d and offering \u201clegal services, training, human rights monitoring, and humanitarian relief\u201d to support migrants.<\/p>\n

When I initially asked Lee about it, he provided a screenshot of what appeared to be a web search result, showing the name \u201cAmerican Friends Service Committee\u201d above a link to NGP VAN, a data platform used by Democratic campaigns, and a link to a launch party for Bichler at Wrightsville Beach Brewery on January 27. As for \u201c2\/26\u201d \u2014 that appears to be the date of the search.<\/p>\n

\"Screenshot<\/p>\n

Screenshot provided by Michael Lee.<\/p>\n

Bichler told me the claim was completely false, and that she suspected it was due to a glitch in the search results, and \u2014 as first reported by Port City Daily<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 has pushed Lee to retract the claim.<\/p>\n

\u201cI had never even heard of that group until I saw it in Michael Lee\u2019s deepfake ad, so yes, a cease-and-desist was sent to address those completely unfounded claims,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Last week, Lee told Port City Daily\u00a0his team was \u201clooking into it.\u201d As of earlier this week, Bichler said she hadn\u2019t received a response. In two different emails, I asked Lee if he had any additional information to support the link between AFSC and Bichler, but he didn\u2019t address the issue in his response beyond sharing the screenshot of the search result again.<\/p>\n

I tried repeatedly to contact AFSC\u2019s national and North Carolina offices, but did not receive a response. Notably, as a 501(c)(3), AFSC would be prohibited from endorsing or opposing a political candidate \u2014 so Lee\u2019s claim is likely to be an issue for them.<\/p>\n

At best, I would say this claim is flimsy, and I think it is probably false. If I were working on oppo research, I would have kept digging before I ran with this one. I couldn\u2019t find any other record of interaction between Bichler and AFSC, including in her promotional materials and campaign finance \u2014 and Lee hasn\u2019t offered any additional evidence, although in his statement sent on Friday, he said in general his ad \u201cdidn\u2019t deceive anyone.\u201d<\/p>\n

For the record, I asked Bichler if she\u2019d weigh in on her actual policy.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve made my positions very clear: I believe in fully funding local law enforcement and making sure that our justice system has the resources it needs to keep criminals behind bars,\u201d she told me. She didn\u2019t comment on immigration, but said in general, \u201cthe claims made in Michael Lee\u2019s ads trying to attach me to anything else are just as truthful as the deepfake he made \u2014 completely false.\u201d<\/p>\n

The ad\u2019s second claim is that Bichler was \u201crecruited to run by socialists,\u201d with a reference to \u201cStrict Scrutiny, 2\/16\/26.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ok, so you have to do a little work for this one.<\/p>\n

Strict Scrutiny\u00a0is a podcast focusing on the Supreme Court and legal culture, created in 2019 and acquired by Crooked Media in 2022. Crooked Media is a progressive-left media company, founded in 2017 by former aides and speechwriters for Barack Obama, and is probably best known for its flagship podcast Pod Save America.<\/p>\n

In 2018, Crooked Media launched Vote Save America to support progressive causes and candidates. Vote Save America has since become an independent PAC, but it\u2019s still closely associated with Crooked Media.<\/p>\n

During the recurring Oprah-style \u2018favorite things\u2019 segment of the February 16 edition<\/a> of Strict Scrutiny, co-host Kate Shaw gave Bichler a shout-out and asked listeners to support her. (The episodes have transcripts; I don\u2019t think Lee\u2019s team spent hours listening to the show, trawling for material.)<\/p>\n

\u201cJessica, we were so excited to learn that you\u2019re a Strict Scrutiny listener and that the show played a part in your decision to run for the State Senate,\u201d Shaw said. \u201cJessica heard about Vote Save America\u2019s candidate recruitment program on our show and filled out an online form, not knowing where it would lead and is now running for North Carolina State Senate District 7.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to campaign finance records<\/a>, Vote Save America has given $6,800 to Bichler\u2019s committee, the maximum allowable contribution.<\/p>\n

So, \u201crecruited,\u201d in the sense that Vote Save America (and Crooked Media) works to get progressive-minded folks to run for office and support them, I think can hold some weight. Although, as I understand it, the process also involves the Democratic State Senate Caucus. It\u2019s a lot of work to put together a political campaign, especially for a big state-level race; it takes a lot more than filling out an online form.<\/p>\n

And \u201csocialists\u201d \u2014 well, that depends on whom you\u2019re talking to. I asked Lee if he was using the word in a casual sense, the way some conservatives refer to much that’s left of center as \u2018socialism\u2019 (or, increasingly, \u2018communism\u2019) or if he was claiming more specifically that Vote Save America (and thus by extension Bichler) was affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America. He didn\u2019t answer that question.<\/p>\n

For a middle-of-the-road voter, watching the ad casually, \u201crecruited by socialist\u201d might inflame the kind of concerns a lot of centrist and center-left have about more radical left-wing politics. But once you unpack it, it\u2019s a bit of a stretch. Actual socialists, of the DSA variety, would probably dislike the kind of pragmatic, big-tent incrementalism that undergirds a lot of Pod Save America\u00a0conversations (which sometimes criticize them). But you\u2019re not going to get that kind of political nuance from a campaign ad \u2014 and, to be fair, there are center-right politicians who will, no doubt, be labeled \u2018far right\u2019 or \u2018right wing\u2019 when that\u2019s not really accurate, either.<\/p>\n

A slop in the face<\/p>\n

But, of course, this was not just an attack ad, it was an AI-generated deepfake attack ad.<\/p>\n

For a lot of people I\u2019ve spoken to about this, there is something different about this ad compared to the ones we\u2019ve grown used to seeing. That is, I suspect, part of the point. People dislike attack ads, but many have learned to tune them out. Some found this ad concerning or cruel, others found it silly or stupid, and a few actually thought it was funny. But I think they\u2019d agree: it was harder to ignore.<\/p>\n

In terms of using AI in general, Bichler criticized Lee for making \u201ca deliberate choice to support data centers powering AI use over supporting our local film community. Instead of employing a highly skilled local film crew, he decided to buy AI slop.\u201d<\/p>\n

I doubt Lee\u2019s ad would have been any more well received by his detractors if he\u2019d gone with a dramatic reenactment over a deepfake. But there are certainly things about the AI industry \u2014 the theft of intellectual property, the environmental concerns, the looming job losses \u2014 that rub people the wrong way, and using it in a campaign ad is certainly a risk for that reason.<\/p>\n

When it came to Lee\u2019s ad in particular, Bichler said she was disturbed.<\/p>\n

\u201cI first noticed the AI in the mailers, where I honestly wasn’t sure the person pictured was supposed to be me. The TV ad is something else entirely. Seeing my likeness moving around like that on screen was disconcerting. The idea that this man not only has the power to create these images, but feels comfortable making my body and my voice do absolutely anything that he chooses is incredibly creepy. The reaction I’m hearing, from people of many political leanings, is that it\u2019s deeply wrong and frankly, weird,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

There are lots of ways to misrepresent people using real sound and images. You can use an unflattering photo, or an awkward soundbite. You can take comments out of context, or use traditional editing techniques to make someone look unattractive or appear to react inappropriately to an event (laughing at a memorial, or looking dour at a celebration). The opponent often appears in greyscale, like a crime show reenactment, with ominous music playing, while the candidate appears in warm, bright color, with a stirring soundtrack.<\/p>\n

Bichler identified something a lot of people I\u2019ve spoken to also felt: the creation of imagery that didn\u2019t previously exist seems categorically different than simply manipulating or misrepresenting a photo or video.<\/p>\n

Lee acknowledged that he approved this ad, so it\u2019s fair to say he thought it was fair game. But I asked whether he thought there were \u2014 or could be \u2014 cases where it went too far.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is a line, and it isn’t about whether a computer was involved. The line is deception. No one should use AI to make a voter believe a real person said something they never said or did something they never did,\u201d Lee wrote in response. \u201cThis ad does not deceive anyone. The image of my opponent is clearly a caricature \u2014 no human body can be twisted like that. And she doesn’t speak in it. Nobody would believe it\u2019s a real event.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a fair point that no one is likely to have seen Lee\u2019s ad and thought it was real. But at the same time, AI technology to render realistic images has developed rapidly. Just look back two years to the AI-generated ad attacking Republican Mark Robinson<\/a>, who was then running for Governor. The graphics are horrible, although the ad itself was pretty effective, relying on the inflammatory and probably disqualifying things Robinson had actually said. Point being, at the time, I don\u2019t recall anyone, on either side of the aisle, fretting about the ethics or morality of using Robinson\u2019s likeness.<\/p>\n

Lee argues that the fakeness of this deepfake is so conspicuous that, even without a disclosure notice (which the ad does\u00a0include), no one is at risk of believing it\u2019s real. And yet, the fidelity with which it recreates Bichler\u2019s likeness is significantly better than any cartoon or doctored video.<\/p>\n

So, I think it\u2019s fair to consider what happens with the next ad, and the one after that, with imagery \u2014 and speech \u2014 that does\u00a0appear real.<\/p>\n

Regulating AI campaign ads<\/p>\n

\"From<\/p>\n

From North Carolina House Bill 934.<\/p>\n

State legislators in North Carolina, including Lee, have started addressing the harmful potential of deepfakes and AI-generated campaign material. Three years ago, Lee co-sponsored Senate Bill 88<\/a>, which would have required disclosures on any campaign ad that featured AI-generated content.<\/p>\n

Though the bill died in the House, Lee told me when it came to his own campaign ad, he \u201cstill added a disclosure because it\u2019s the right thing to do.\u201d<\/p>\n

He also said he\u2019d be in favor of regulating \u201cdeceptive\u201d deepfakes, which wouldn\u2019t exclude the way he used AI in his ad.<\/p>\n

\u201cNorth Carolina needs a law to regulate the deception, not the tool. These tools are here, and they are not going away. The obligation to use them honestly sits with whoever uses them. That includes me. And that\u2019s exactly what I did,\u201d Lee wrote.<\/p>\n

Bichler took a stronger line against the use of deepfakes.<\/p>\n

\u201cAsking for honesty about how a message was made isn\u2019t a restriction on free speech. Opposing the theft of a person\u2019s likeness to build a fantasy about her isn\u2019t censorship, it\u2019s a defense of basic dignity. If you have something to say about me, you should have the courage to say it without hiding behind a deepfake,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, a bipartisan group of state representatives in the House filed a bill banning deceptive deepfakes<\/a> that depict \u201ca natural person speaking or acting in a manner that the person did not actually speak or act\u201d to harass or harm someone, or with the intent of \u201cinjuring a candidate for elected office or influencing an election.\u201d That would likely include Lee\u2019s ad, or similar deepfakes.<\/p>\n

The bill, which has been parked in the House Elections Law Committee since May, would make the creation of an illegal deepfake a Class 1 misdemeanor (the second most serious type).<\/p>\n

Overall, 31 states have passed laws regulating AI-generated content, including deepfakes, in political messaging, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Most of those states focused on disclosure requirements, with 28 requiring the same sort of notice you\u2019d see identifying who paid for a political ad. Colorado and Utah also require disclosure in the metadata of video and images.<\/p>\n

Three states go further, prohibiting certain AI use. Minnesota and Texas prohibit deepfakes in a specific time period prior to the election. Maryland\u2019s law bans election-related deepfakes in general, with no time period.<\/p>\n

AI and free speech<\/p>\n

Again, I\u2019m no fan of AI. I dislike it for the same reasons a lot of people do: it\u2019s a cheap facsimile of human creation that\u2019s boiling lakes\u2019 worth of water and setting the scene for catastrophic job losses. It also poses serious threats as a tool of misinformation and propaganda. The 2022 deepfake of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky \u2018surrendering\u2019 to Russia was mocked as amateurishly unconvincing<\/a>, but the technology is getting better and more deceptive.<\/p>\n

There are a lot of reasons to be concerned. But, at the same time, I\u2019m also a journalist, a civil libertarian by nature and in practice, and when governments get an itchy trigger finger around free speech, I worry.<\/p>\n

I wanted to hash out my conflicting instincts here, so I got in touch with John Coleman, who serves as legislative counsel on AI and free expression for FIRE. We\u2019ve called on FIRE before, on a host of issues, from New Hanover County Schools\u2019 flag and display policy<\/a> to CFCC\u2019s attempt to censure a student performance.<\/a><\/p>\n

Coleman told me FIRE strongly objects to laws seeking to ban deepfakes.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think you can dislike a political ad made with AI without wanting the government to come in and regulate it,\u201d he said. \u201cSo, the First Amendment protects political speech, which means that the government has little power over what voters are allowed to see or hear during an election cycle. And that includes speech that is false, exaggerated, offensive, or even in poor taste, right?\u201d<\/p>\n

Many of the bills, Coleman argued, are overly broad.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re capturing parody and satire, memes, and other forms of political speech, like normal commentary, and all of this is being exchanged, distributed, shared across social media,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd oftentimes, these bills are not just candidate against candidate, but someone sharing that kind of content online. So [the laws] are going after you, me, and Grandma when it comes to political speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

That objection to government intervention, for Coleman, also extended to laws requiring disclosure of AI-generated content. He argued that the would represent compelled speech.<\/p>\n

There are, of course, limits to free speech \u2013 and Coleman noted that some of the potential misuses of AI would fall under defamation laws.<\/p>\n

I conceded that, when it came to free speech, I would support something like the editorial cartoons in The Pender-Topsail Post & Voice, which are often mock and criticize some of the county\u2019s political figures; regardless of how I felt about them, they\u2019re protected speech. The likenesses of public figures are fair game for art, including satire, and journalism, including critical commentary. Viewed as just another tool, AI creates just another cartoon \u2014 even if it’s a disturbingly realistic one.<\/p>\n

Talking to Coleman, I tried to walk through a somewhat inchoate idea: that there was some way in which AI\u2019s ability to uncannily create imagery of someone was not just superficially but categorically different from other methods. It\u2019s been a long time since my cognitive psychology days, but I wondered out loud if, at a neurological level, a realistic AI image is processed differently than a cartoon or a cardboard cut-out. And, if that were the case, something about an AI video, even a satirical one, that wasn\u2019t technically defamatory was still somehow different, and maybe outside the bounds of, other protected speech.<\/p>\n

Not surprisingly, Coleman didn\u2019t go for that, summing it up as \u201cde facto defamation\u201d just by using AI at all, though he was sympathetic to the concern. He noted that historically, new technology \u2014 the printing press, photography, radio \u2014 made it possible to spread all manner of \u2018bad speech\u2019 in faster and harder-to-check ways. That made sense to me, though \u2014 if I\u2019m honest \u2014 I still can\u2019t quite shake my sense that AI is a new beast, somehow.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, Coleman offered the classic tonic of free speech advocates: the answer to bad speech is more, better speech, not censorship.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat happens if you regulate this is, someone’s going to get a cause of action, or some government official is going to be able to haul someone into court over a violation, which often means that the content is taken down or is temporarily blocked and litigated over in a very short time frame, all the while these people are running a race to to be elected,\u201d Coleman said. \u201cThe most appropriate place to have these conversations is always in the public square. Allow for political debate to happen, and allow for more speech to combat false statements, and let that process work.\u201d<\/p>\n

The cure for bad speech<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not sure I\u2019m fully convinced of FIRE\u2019s point of view, although it was sobering to consider how quickly I mentally jumped to government intervention. I have to remind myself of the things that are protected by the First Amendment \u2013 yes, hate speech, but also conspiracy theories, misinformation, and, in many cases, outright lies. Separating my discomfort about that from the importance of free speech is not always easy. It\u2019s not in this case.<\/p>\n

I think it\u2019s notable that Bichler and Lee both think disclosing the use of AI is not just allowable but important \u2014 and I agree with them. I think there\u2019s potential for material harm that isn\u2019t\u00a0abated by defamation laws and, while we figure it out, disclosure laws make sense to me. The ones already on the books may well be challenged, and we\u2019ll see how that goes. Maybe in ten years we\u2019ll need them less, maybe we\u2019ll need them more.<\/p>\n

When it comes to banning AI-generated content, I think I\u2019m closer to agreeing with Coleman and FIRE. For all the words I could use to describe AI \u2014 tacky, cheap, stupid, cringe \u2014 if it\u2019s speech, I think it\u2019s worth being careful about how we regulate it. Outside of the world of political messaging, where it involves people who aren\u2019t public figures, I think there\u2019s a different conversation when it comes to harassment and threats. (But for now, since we\u2019re talking about political ads, I\u2019ll leave it there.)<\/p>\n

One thing I think Coleman and I agreed on is that \u2014 whatever you think of AI content \u2014 there is also some responsibility on the part of the individual, in this case, the voter.<\/p>\n

Imagine a world with no regulation and no mandatory disclosure, where an extremely realistic AI-created video, virtually indistinguishable from real imagery, with no tell-tale quirks, is published, showing a candidate doing and saying reprehensible things. (In the very near future, you may not need to imagine it at all). What, as a voter, would you do?<\/p>\n

One hopes that, at minimum, you\u2019d search online for news coverage of the candidate by a respected outlet \u2014 and not just read the AI summary or the headline, but actually click on the link and check out the article. The antidote to bad speech is good speech, for example, solid, trustworthy reporting.<\/p>\n

Polling shows<\/a> that Americans feel negative campaign ads discourage them from civic engagement, even from voting, but those people could make a different choice. Instead of pulling away, they could dig in.<\/p>\n

That choice is independent of what the ads look like or what new technology is used to create or distribute them. Fact-checking the actual claims in a state-of-the-art deepfake, at the end of the day, is pretty much the same as fact-checking something as low-tech as a door-hanger or mailer. A pain in the neck, but worth it.<\/p>\n

As Jefferson put it, \u201cWhenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government.\u201d And when they\u2019re not, they may be borne away on a tide of slop.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"WHQR’s Sunday Edition\u00a0is a free weekly newsletter delivered every Sunday morning. You can sign up for Sunday Edition\u00a0here.…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":280363,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[153,155,154],"class_list":["post-280362","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-bethlehem","tag-bethlehem","tag-bethlehem-headlines","tag-bethlehem-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280362","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=280362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/280362\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/280363"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=280362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=280362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-pa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=280362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}