According to The Wesleyan Media Project, a nonprofit organization that tracks and analyzes advertising by federal and gubernatorial candidates, $147 million has been spent on AI-generated ads, with AI used for some or all of the production.
Most of that spending has been by Republicans. Not surprisingly, Democrats are "sounding the alarm."
One of the most effective AI-generated ads targeted Georgia's incumbent Sen. Jon Ossoff. In September, when word leaked out that Ossoff spent more on hair and grooming than any other Senator, the GOP Senate Leadership Fund released a corker of an attack ad. The ad claims Ossoff "talks pretty" but has "an ugly record" and "a lot to cover up."
It shows Ossoff in a beauty salon with a couple of beauticians attending to him.
Here's the catch: Anyone who believes John Ossoff really goes to a beauty salon and gets a beauty treatment is too stupid to be voting. Perhaps that includes Ossoff?
Mocking political opponents is well within accepted campaign etiquette, even in today's harsh political climate. Is it a valid issue to raise? Who's to say that it isn't?
Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed is easy pickings, although one ad may have crossed a line in dishonesty. One AI-deepfake depicts a supposed "family photo" with El-Sayed posing with toxic antisemitic influencer Hasan Piker and four women in burqas.
Another anti-El-Sayed ad shows the candidate "playing a Risk-style board game with his half-sister, Eman Abdelhadi, and Piker," according to Axios. "It depicts cards bearing statements that include 'Death to America,' 'Do not Celebrate Thanksgiving' and 'Celebrate 9/11.'"
A pro-GOP super PAC, Frontline Action, produced the ad. The group told CNN that the ad was "grounded in El-Sayed's own public statements and documented reporting and records concerning him and individuals associated with or supportive of his campaign."
All true. But because some of the ad was created using AI, critics can attack it that way rather than as an exaggeration of the truth.
Unlike some ads this election cycle, there is full disclosure that the ad was "created in whole or in part with the use of artificial intelligence." To me, this is the biggest problem with using AI-generated ads. There is a patchwork of rules governing the disclosure aspect of AI deepfakes that varies from state to state. Some states don't require any disclosure at all.
Not all deepfakes are as easily recognizable as AI-generated ones like the Ossoff ad.
Republican Bruce Blakeman's campaign and allied super PACs have repeatedly used generative AI in ads attacking Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, with varying degrees of disclosure.
One AI-generated ad released by the Blakeman campaign depicts the Tooth Fairy struggling to come up with cash to give to children, saying she "just can't afford to be the Tooth Fairy in Kathy Hochul's New York."
Another Blakesman spot says onscreen: "We asked AI what a truthful Kathy Hochul ad would look like." The ad features AI-generated scenes of Hochul attending an upscale dinner and standing outside a police precinct while a man asks her: "Want some crack?"
Give them an "A" for creativity, but I'm not sure the crack about "crack" wasn't a little below the belt.
In Pennsylvania, data centers are a huge issue. GOP candidate for governor, Stacy Garrity, released an AI-generated ad showing Gov. Josh Shapiro saying, "This ad was created with AI, thanks to big, beautiful data centers. Fact is, I was the one who fast-tracked data centers right here in PA, right after they handed me $5 million in political contributions."
Shapiro never said that, of course. Even if it's true, is it OK to show him saying it?
No race has used AI-generated advertising better than the Texas Senate race where James Talarico may as well be depicted as the devil himself.
Democratic candidate James Talarico has been a consistent target of AI-generated ads from both Republican Ken Paxton's campaign and outside super PACs.
A Paxton campaign ad uses AI to depict Talarico defacing a Bible with crayon and saying, "In the beginning God was non-binary, and he wasn't a Christian. And God said, 'let there be six genders,' and there were."
Talarico told NBC he "tried in the legislature to ban AI deepfake videos in political campaigns because they are misleading. They are lying about a candidate in this race."
How is Paxton lying? Didn't Talarico claim the very same thing in an interview? It shows a rare depth of idiocy to say something outrageous like "God was non-binary" and not expect an opponent to skewer him six weeks from Sunday. He stated that "[God] is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is nonbinary." Good luck living that down, Jamie.
As long as a deepfake is labeled as such, I see absolutely no problem with it. It's just another way for a politician to attack.