• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Rise of the Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine

casebro said:
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?
Click to expand...
But EVERYBODY ELSE :rolleyes: has not missed the point. For whatever reason, confirmation bias about me I would guess, the right wingers on this forum seem quite annoyed at the OP and have either posted a missed-the-point reply or simply complained.
 
The Big Dog said:
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
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
But EVERYBODY ELSE :rolleyes: has not missed the point. For whatever reason, confirmation bias about me I would guess, the right wingers on this forum seem quite annoyed at the OP and have either posted a missed-the-point reply or simply complained.
Click to expand...

and others have laid bare the lies in the linked article.

Lets just say he has :thumbsup:two thumbs:thumbsup:
 
Distracted1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And more than that, it makes a difference to keep up on just where this marketing science is going since it affects all of us. Knowledge, IMO, can produce at least some immunity to the techniques used.

I stay off FB and other social media sites as well. But I have no doubt that from my browsing and perhaps even data mining of forum posts, replies to emails and other comments I may have posted on blogs and whatnot, there is just as sophisticated a profile of me in the data bases as people who like to post likes on FB.

While there isn't much I can do about that unless I want to stay completely off the internet and quit using credit cards, I do want to see the stupid Democrats level the playing field with marketing science. I want kids to learn media literacy and this is part of that knowledge base one needs to do so.

It's not only about politics, it's about making propaganda so effective that control of beliefs grows. And sure, the various religions have been controlling beliefs to variable degrees since their inception. But that's no reason to ignore current trends if said trends are harmful. In the case of people like the Kochs, the Scaifes and the Mercers, those are not the people I want to see using the most advanced techniques.

Our current incompetent POTUS is the result of this science, it may get much worse before it gets better.
 
I've read and heard a bit about this. I guess I find it more fascinating than scary. The story I heard is that the campaign wasn't to win over Hillary supporters, but rather to find ways to get them to stay home. Whether it be targeting the line of, "It's in the bag" to the unmotivated voter to the lines SG pointed out about how one "may not be able to support Trump, but you certainly can't support Hillary either because of ...." Mostly because I don't feel like looking into targeted results right now, I vaguely recall that some of the borderline areas that Trump won weren't because he pulled more votes than Romney, it was because Hillary received less than Obama. I could be wrong on that though.

It really is brilliant if that was the reason Trump won. Next cycle, all sides will be doing it, then it will kind of even itself out.

Strikes me a bit like the Oakland A's having success with Saber Metrics before other teams started incorporating Saber Metrics AND a budget.

Perhaps a big advantage this time around, but just the new normal next time is my guess.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Exactly.

And more than that, it makes a difference to keep up on just where this marketing science is going since it affects all of us. Knowledge, IMO, can produce at least some immunity to the techniques used.

I stay off FB and other social media sites as well. But I have no doubt that from my browsing and perhaps even data mining of forum posts, replies to emails and other comments I may have posted on blogs and whatnot, there is just as sophisticated a profile of me in the data bases as people who like to post likes on FB.

While there isn't much I can do about that unless I want to stay completely off the internet and quit using credit cards, I do want to see the stupid Democrats level the playing field with marketing science. I want kids to learn media literacy and this is part of that knowledge base one needs to do so.

It's not only about politics, it's about making propaganda so effective that control of beliefs grows. And sure, the various religions have been controlling beliefs to variable degrees since their inception. But that's no reason to ignore current trends if said trends are harmful. In the case of people like the Kochs, the Scaifes and the Mercers, those are not the people I want to see using the most advanced techniques.

Our current incompetent POTUS is the result of this science, it may get much worse before it gets better.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you do agree with my post #17. So how did you not see my connection to your OP?
 
casebro said:
Sounds like you do agree with my post #17. So how did you not see my connection to your OP?
Click to expand...
Sounds like you didn't read my post #18. How can you not see this thread has little to nothing to do with these statements of yours:
The media has been controlling us via yellow journalism since the days of Hearst and Pulitzer. Or even Gutenberg, printing the Bible?
Click to expand...
So. If someone posted about a breakthrough in understanding dark matter would you post, so what, we've known about dark matter already?

What is news is that libruls like SG are discussing it here today a on a site with an avowed liberal bias.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with anything I posted? It's bizarre, honestly Casebro.

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.
Click to expand...
Not relevant at all. Does your sudden increase in spelling errors say anything about your state of mind when you posted it?

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.
Click to expand...
Completely irrelevant. The OP is not about how the Internet is spying on you. Maybe that's your problem, you think this thread is about Big Brother when it is not. It is about marketing and persuasion science.

But if libruls like SG sees it, there my be hope yet.
Click to expand...
And this is gratuitous nonsense again, makes no sense relative to the thread topic.
 
Childlike Empress said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Only we " weak minded fools " can be manipulated by cheap Jedi mind tricks. The strong are not subject to such things.
 
Brainster said:
And the example used happens to be real news, not fake news. Hillary really did use the "super-predator" line.
Click to expand...
Where in the article or the OP does it say anything about this technique requiring fake news? Yes, it involves fake news, but not exclusively.

And the super-predator comment was easily taken out of context for exploitation, but that's beside the point..
 
The key US intelligence failure of the 2016 election was to disregard the social manipulation aspect of the Russian influence campaign: they were well aware of the hacking of voter registrations and the DNC and RNC. But they couldn't understand how creating fake FB and Twitter accounts and websites could lead to seriously affecting an election.
If permitted by the administration, the US IC won't make that mistake again, and it will get the assistance it needs from the internet tech giants.
 
My issue is this a bunch of ostensibly unmanipulated people debating about manipulated people and what they think. At some point it feels like we should be debating manipulated people.
 
I will admit that the sophistication involved in harnessing this technology is scary. But, really, how do you solve it? The tech is out there and it will be used -as someone said earlier, it will be used by both sides next election.

The solution is going to have to involve the platforms themselves. Facebook is going to have to stand up and say, "We will not allow our platform to be used in this way." But are they ready to give up the money this brings in? And if they do, will users migrate to other platforms?

And then let's consider the targets of these ads. Presumably, the ads about the "super-predator" comments were directed at African-Americans. Assuming that they agree with Hillary Clinton and the Democrats on most policy positions, why would these voters be so easily manipulated?

Finally, how can we be sure that this isn't a correlation-causation issue? Isn't it possible that the voters were already turned off by Clinton as a candidate and these ads had very little effect, if any?

Thanks for sharing. I had been looking for info on what exactly CA did and this set me on an interesting path.
 
I have to agree; The use of this technology is scary,but the genie is out of the bottle and unless is involves something out and out illegal like hacking into a website there is little we can do about it.
Like most weapons it is neutral;really does not care who uses it.
 
xjx388 said:
I will admit that the sophistication involved in harnessing this technology is scary. But, really, how do you solve it? The tech is out there and it will be used -as someone said earlier, it will be used by both sides next election.

The solution is going to have to involve the platforms themselves. Facebook is going to have to stand up and say, "We will not allow our platform to be used in this way." But are they ready to give up the money this brings in? And if they do, will users migrate to other platforms?

And then let's consider the targets of these ads. Presumably, the ads about the "super-predator" comments were directed at African-Americans. Assuming that they agree with Hillary Clinton and the Democrats on most policy positions, why would these voters be so easily manipulated?

Finally, how can we be sure that this isn't a correlation-causation issue? Isn't it possible that the voters were already turned off by Clinton as a candidate and these ads had very little effect, if any?

Thanks for sharing. I had been looking for info on what exactly CA did and this set me on an interesting path.
Click to expand...

What CA did would have been lllegal in Europe because they have stricter laws about internet privacy, but are not illegal here, however scummy they might be.
Maybe a change in our laws would help.
Real problem is that Facebook, after finding there was a problem. did nothing about improving it security on this until the story broke. Well. it will cost them plenty now.
What amazed me is that the head of CA out and out bragged about what they were doing in public. Seems to me keeping a low profile on this kind of operation is key. Telling a perspective client about it in private is one thing, bragging about it in public for no other reason then bragging is just plain stupid
 
Elagabalus said:
This perhaps?

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...er-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump
Click to expand...


Uhm, this is a very wordy Guardian article (which I skimmed before you posted it) around a pink-haired "master storyteller" that didn't feature in the OP article or in the even earlier Swiss article from December 2016 which I posted in #16. None of the story but the drama seems to be new, including the method they used (a "Big Five" quiz on facebook which gave them both important information about the takers AND their agreement to further use the data). Again, where's the scandal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom