The Pentagon is running an AI propaganda mill targeting Latin America
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
During the Cold War, the CIA famously funded all sorts of cultural endeavors, but much of the output (if not directly CIA-created, then at least bolstered by the Agency) is still held to have been culturally relevant: abstract expressionism (https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20161004-was-modern-art-...), the Kenyon Review (https://www.thecollegianmagazine.com/the-kenyon-review-and-t...), etc.
Lots to criticize in the Cold War, but I think you can at least make the argument that this was emblematic of an American cultural power that was self-assured of its own value and legitimacy.
In comparison, now we have...LLMs creating personal finance tips?
1. I think the examples I linked to are real, in the sense that they were both a) CIA funded (or boosted) and b) are broadly credible cultural output.
2. Voice of America was a real media outlet with real cultural impact.
There are also non-American examples. The BBC World Service is (or was) pretty widely listened to, which strikes me as a pretty big soft-power boost for an otherwise waning colonial power.
I do think what separates those from (apparently) this example is that they were all output that had genuine value to the target audience. That's sort of like the discussion around USAID: it was, indeed, also often CIA-adjacent and, during the Cold War, was anything but a purely altruistic endeavor (which is why it's so funny to see reactionaries describing it as some sort of bleeding-heart operation), but it nonetheless provided genuine value to recipients of its relatively meager budget.
What seems to be the dominant philosophy in Washington now is either a) America can get all the same cultural influence for cheap via AI, or b) soft power influence doesn't matter anyway because America has the Tomahawk missiles.
I think both of those views are likely to be incorrect.
But I don't know that I find a lot of fault with, like, funding the Kenyon Review. That sort of seems like a fine thing to do. I'm not sure there's a discernible difference between that and just sort of generally funding arts and culture, which a) seems fine, but b) also certainly serves to aggrandize "our" culture and promote the glory of "our" way of life.
It’s so bizarre to me that in the US heartland, Latinos are demonised, yet beyond US borders they care so much about the democratic welfare of their South American amigos.
I'm fine with this.
> one for EU, one for Japan, etc?
I'm not okay with this. Wouldn't lump the two together.
Putin doesn't plaster Europe with propaganda because he thinks the Russian system is good. He does it for power. And if your system is that good, propaganda is effective.
> A Soviet visits America and says: "Wow, the propaganda is so good here! Much better than back home", an American replies: "What propaganda!? We don't have propaganda here!", to which the Soviet responds: "Exactly!".
It’s incredible. The guy seems to be giving brutally real opinions, the good and the bad, and telling his life’s story. Reddit readers ( admitting they’ve never been to Cuba ) try to shout him down and tell him what he should be thinking.
It’d be nice to hear more first hand stories like that.
This is like sales and marketing, idealists think you can build the perfect product and it will sell itself. It won't. It's an adversarial marketplace and you have to show the world what you did, against people who are trying to tear you down.
Information is not self recommending. There's a lot going on in the world, attention is scarce. Moreso today than ever before, but it's been true for a long time.
But the First Amendment is a cultural touchstone for America. Even if everyone else does this nonsense, it's not of demonstrable value and it does hurt us when we get caught like this. Unilateral disarmament isn't usually an option. But it is, I think, when it comes to this.
I think we should pass a law banning undisclosed social media, psyop and other unattributed propaganda campaigns among (a) allies and (b) other democracies (as judged by a neutral source).
It would be a surprise, it they weren't using AI to add to the mix.
I mean there used to be a fair amount of government loyalists remaining, working for outlets like Voice of America who, probably, sincerely thought they were doing a good thing. But they butted head with the Trump administration hard.
For all loyalists there is a grifter to true believer ratio, and for the current admin it's bad. Why pay a hard-to-find true believer to make actually convincing propaganda, when you're a grifter yourself and have the opportunity to take the budget for yourself and let an LLM half-ass it?
There's a reason why the public distrusts journalists more and more. Many people still think the problems are limited to domestic journalism, and haven't connected the dots yet w.r.t. that foreign policy journalism is just as bad, if not worse.
The public just distrusts large organizations now because those large organizations haven't been effective with their stated missions.
Yes it is. I'm supposed to pay with my email and chance to be spammed. No, I won't be doing so.