[flagged]
>The fake news anchor introduced unverified images that claimed to show Palestinians injured and killed from Israeli military operations in Gaza.
So they are "unverified" in that someone from The Guardian hasn't personally checked that they are images from Gaza, but they were NOT AI-generated. The only thing that seems AI-generated is the anchorman, but that is of little importance.
>Iranian state-backed hackers interrupted TV streaming services in the United Arab Emirates to broadcast a deepfake newsreader delivering a report on the war in Gaza, according to analysts at Microsoft.
>The tech company said a hacking operation run by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, a key branch of the Iranian armed forces, had disrupted streaming platforms in the UAE with an AI-generated news broadcast branded “For Humanity”.
>The fake news anchor introduced unverified images that claimed to show Palestinians injured and killed from Israeli military operations in Gaza. Analysts at Microsoft said the hacking group, known as Cotton Sandstorm, published videos on the Telegram messaging platform showing it hacking into three online streaming services and disrupting news channels with the fake newscaster.
As far as verifying things goes, yes, that's how it should work. I'm no fan of the Guardian by any means but there has been a ton of misinformation, old videos from Assad's forces bombing civilians passed off as Palestinians getting bombed, that kind of stuff. The entire conflict is an all-out propaganda war in addition to the physical fighting. Thinking that the Islamic Republic of all regimes wouldn't lie about the Israel-Palestine conflict is absurd. Also as an aside, the Guardian itself is regularly accused of having anti-Israel bias. They're not exactly known to push pro Israel talking points, to put it mildly. It's a bit like accusing Al Jazeera of having an anti Gaza bias.
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/09/worlds-first-a...
No professional writer would do that by accident. The writing is very obviously slanted in a way meant to mislead the audience. I don't know what their motives for misleading people may be. I suspect it's mostly to sex up the story by exaggerating ther sensational "AI" angle more, because, hey, who cares if you escalate a conflict and get more people killed when there are clicks and views and ad impressions to be had.
But the fact that they are intentionally misleading people is evident in their own words.
As for the actual video, it's trivial to find stuff that will generate the talking head for you, and they probably did that so they wouldn't have to have any of their own people on camera. That's zero evidence in either direction about the veracity of the important parts, even though the Guardian is trying to use it to cast doubt on those parts.
The "unverified images" themselves may or may not be real, but almost certainly are NOT AI-generated. As you yourself noticed, it's still easier, even today to just use old stuff or stuff from other wars.
And honestly there's going to be more than enough real evil done in any war that you could make a video like that if you had some kind of omniscient camera.
> the Guardian itself is regularly accused of having anti-Israel bias
That's definitely not been the case since Oct 7th. They've been extremely pro-Israel, just like all of the MSM.
This is wildly overdrawn and lacking in substantial basis.
Though I'm sure there are many who believe that any source besides Electronic Intifada (or equivalent to it in tone and selective reporting) is "extremely pro-Israel".