At What Point Will Generative AI Really Start Swaying Elections?

Lon Harris
Lon Harris is a contributor to dot.LA. His work has also appeared on ScreenJunkies, RottenTomatoes and Inside Streaming.
At What Point Will Generative AI Really Start Swaying Elections?
Evan Xie

With rumors swirling this week about the potential (now delayed) arrest of former president Donald Trump, social media responded as it tends to do with any major news story: by memeing the heck out of it. In this case, imaginative online pranksters took to generative AI art apps like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion to create fake images of Trump being placed under arrest and taken to prison. One narrative thread of AI imagery – depicting Trump’s journey from arrest to prison to escape and ultimately seeking sanctuary in McDonald’s was apparently enough to get British journalist Eliot Higgings temporarily banned from the Midjourney app entirely.

Naturally, this led to another round of deep concern from the press about the potential future implications of AI art and other kinds of “deepfake” technology. Soon, these editorials warn, we may be completely incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction or trusting even evidence we can see and hear. With new AI apps and concepts flooding the internet every day, we’re now repeating this news cycle every few weeks. It was only late February when everyone was concerned about those vocal deepfakes, following the spread of clips in which Joe Biden was trapped in the “Skinamarink” house, or recalled the events of the 2011 film “We Bought a Zoo.”

Certainly, no one could deny the power a single potent image can have on public perception. How many times have social media users shared that memorable photograph of the Clintons and Trumps at a party together chatting it up, or Elon Musk posing next to convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, or those Charlotesville protesters with the tiki torches. The whole concept of photojournalism is built around the concept that a carefully-captured image can tell a story just as effectively as a 500-word article.

But is AI Art actually believable?

It’s nonetheless worth pointing out in light of the viral success of Higgings’ and others’ “Trump Arrest” AI art threads that we’re not yet in a world in which apps like Midjourney could potentially sway elections. Consumer-facing AI products can certainly produce compelling images based only on simple prompts, but once you get out of the realm of relatively simple portraits and straight-forward concepts, the results become exponentially less photorealistic. Even in Higgins’ own thread, static shots of Trump in a prison cell alone reading a book or slouching against a fence look way more compelling than action shots of him shooting hoops with other inmates or fleeing authorities to a fast food joint under cover of night. (Though the Golden Arches come through perfectly, even the McDonald’s name doesn’t translate into AI; Midjourney reproduces their logo as reading “Minonad.”)

AI art apps famously struggle to reproduce the more nuanced and complicated bits of human anatomy like faces and hands (though there have been recent signs of improvement here). Some shapes and textures, like liquids, also remain problematic for the apps, though again there are some signs of hope on the horizon.

All the “sky is falling” editorials about how one day soon, you won’t be able to tell if a photo is real or AI prompt-based, begin with the core assumption that these proposed solutions will work out, and generative AI art apps will essentially become perfect very soon. And look, there is no direct evidence that this is wrong, and the fact that these apps exist in the first place is impressive.

But is it a guarantee that Midjourney will definitely get a lot better at photorealism in the near future, such that we have to be actively concerned when we see a photo of President Trump about whether or not we can believe our eyes? Is this the kind of thing we can “teach” software just by showing it thousands of individual labeled photographs and telling it “this is what reality looks like”? Does anyone even know?

The Pixar Problem

I’m reminded of a San Diego Comic-Con panel I attended in 2008. (Bear with me! I swear this is gonna link up.) Pixar did a presentation in Hall H that year previewing their latest film, “Up,” and the conversation included some insights into some of the more complicated animation challenges the studio had encountered to date. “Up” director Pete Docter was a veteran of one of the studios’ first and most-beloved films, “Monsters Inc.,” and he said that one of the chief obstacles to animating that film was the character of Sully, who’s covered in thick blue fur. When Pixar began work on “Monsters Inc,” their computer animation software didn’t yet know how to reproduce realistic tufts of hair.

This makes sense when you think about the way hair behaves in the real world. There’s uniform direction; all of Sully’s fur follows him around wherever he goes, and is impacted by his momentum, the wind, other characters and objects moving around, and so forth. But “fur” is not a single uniform object; it’s actually made up of thousands upon thousands of individual strands of hair, which don’t all behave in exactly the same way all the time.

Computers aren’t naturally that good at reproducing this kind of randomized group movement; it took Pixar animators years of diligent work and a whole lot of computer processing power to sort it out. Other complex substances and surfaces like water have also buguiled animators for years. Disney animators working on “Moana” specifically had to address the challenges posed by a movie in which the ocean was both a setting and a supporting character with new techniques and technologies. It’s the same situation with large crowds; they move as a unit, yes, but they’re actually made up of individual people, who also move around on their own. That’s tough for a computer to animate without very specific instructions.

Which (finally!) brings me back to Midjourney and AI art apps. The assumption that the computer will “figure out” all of these challenges on its own, just by being trained and retrained on more and more images, strikes me as a pretty significant one. We tend to view the advancement of technology as purely linear, a straight line from where we are now to “the future.” But in fact, a lot of innovations develop in starts and stops. An intractable problem presents itself, and it can take a relatively long time to sort out, if in fact it ever gets resolved. (It’s been more than a decade since we were first promised self-driving cars and truly immersive virtual reality were just a few years out, after all.)

Perhaps Midjourney will have an easier time with fur and juice and Times Square on New Years Eve than Pixar and Disney’s software had, and won’t require as much patient and careful direction and processing power to sort all of this out. But I’ve yet to see any evidence that it’s a guaranteed sure thing either.

Subscribe to our newsletter to catch every headline.

LA Latino/a Founders On Why Authenticity Matters in Tech

Decerry Donato

Decerry Donato is a reporter at dot.LA. Prior to that, she was an editorial fellow at the company. Decerry received her bachelor's degree in literary journalism from the University of California, Irvine. She continues to write stories to inform the community about issues or events that take place in the L.A. area. On the weekends, she can be found hiking in the Angeles National forest or sifting through racks at your local thrift store.

LA Latino/a Founders On Why Authenticity Matters in Tech
Decerry Donato

As one of the most diverse cities in the world, Los Angeles is home to almost 5 million people who identify as Hispanic or Latinx. Yet, many feel they still lack representation in the city’s tech space.

“I can safely say that last year’s LA tech week hosted all of the events on the west side, and very few were focused on telling Latino and Latina entrepreneurial stories,” said Valeria Martinez, investor at VamosVentures. “We wanted to change that this year.”

Read moreShow less
LA Tech Week Day 3: Social Highlights
Evan Xie

L.A. Tech Week has brought venture capitalists, founders and entrepreneurs from around the world to the California coast. With so many tech nerds in one place, it's easy to laugh, joke and reminisce about the future of tech in SoCal.

Here's what people are saying about day three of L.A. Tech Week on social:

Read moreShow less

LA Tech Week: Female Founders Provide Insights Into Their Startup Journeys

Decerry Donato

Decerry Donato is a reporter at dot.LA. Prior to that, she was an editorial fellow at the company. Decerry received her bachelor's degree in literary journalism from the University of California, Irvine. She continues to write stories to inform the community about issues or events that take place in the L.A. area. On the weekends, she can be found hiking in the Angeles National forest or sifting through racks at your local thrift store.

LA Tech Week: Female Founders Provide Insights Into Their Startup Journeys
Decerry Donato

Women remain a minority among startup founders. According to Pitchbook, even though women-led startups in the United States received a record $20.8 billion in funding during the first half of 2022, U.S. companies with one or more female founders received less than 20% of total venture funding in 2022. U.S. companies solely led by female founders received less than 2% of the total funding.

The panel, titled Female Founders: Planning, Pivoting, Profiting, was moderated by NYU law professor Shivani Honwad and featured Anjali Kundra, co-founder of bar inventory software Partender; Montré Moore, co-founder of the Black-owned beauty startup AMP Beauty LA; Mia Pokriefka, co-founder and CEO of the interactive social media tool Huxly; and Sunny Wu, founder and CEO of fashion company LE ORA.

The panelists shared their advice and insights on starting and growing a business as a woman. They all acknowledged feeling pressure to not appear weak among peers, especially as a female founder. But this added weight only causes more stress that may lead to burnout.

“The mental health aspect of being a founder should not be overshadowed,” said Kundra, who realized this during the early stages of building her company with her brother..

Growing up in Silicon Valley, Kundra was surrounded by the startup culture where, “everyone is crushing it!” But she said that no one really opened up about the challenges of starting your own company. .

“Once you grow up as a founder in that environment, it's pretty toxic,” Kundra said. “I felt like I really wanted to be open and be able to go to our investors and tell them about challenges because businesses go up and down, markets go up and down and no company is perfect.”

Honwad, who advocates for women’s rights, emphasized the value of aligning yourself with people with similar values in the tech ecosystem. “[Those people] can make your life better not just from an investment and money standpoint, but also a personal standpoint, because life happens,” she said.

Moore, who unexpectedly lost one of her co-founders at AMP Beauty, said that entrepreneurs “really have to learn how to adapt to [their] circumstances.”

“She was young, healthy, vibrant and we've been sorority sisters and friends over the past decade,” she said about her co-founder Phyllicia Phillips, who passed away in February. “So it was just one of those moments where you have to take a pause.”

Moore said this experience forced her to ask for help, which many founders hesitate to do. She encouraged the audience to try and share their issues out loud with their teams because there are always people who will offer help. When Moore shared her concerns with her investors, they jumped in to support her in ways she didn’t think was possible.

Kundra said that while it is important to have a support group and listen to mentors, it is very important for entrepreneurs to follow their own thinking and pick and choose what they want to implement within their strategy. “At the end of the day, you really have to own your own decisions,” she said.

Kundra also said that while it is easy to turn to your colleagues and competitors and do what they are doing, you shouldn’t always follow them because every business is different.

“When I was in the heat of it, I kind of became [a part of] this echo chamber and that was really challenging for us,” Kundra added, “but we were able to move beyond it and figure out what worked for us [as a company] and we're still on a journey. You're always going to be figuring it out, so just know you're not alone.”

RELATEDEDITOR'S PICKS
LA TECH JOBS
interchangeLA
Trending