These Democrats Want the FEC To Crack Down on Elon Musk's Grok
Seven congressional Democrats called on the FEC to stop deepfakes. But is there really much to worry about?

On Monday, a group of Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), asking the agency to adopt regulations prohibiting the creation of deepfakes of election candidates.
The letter, signed by seven congressional Democrats, was sparked by recent controversies surrounding Grok, an AI chatbot released on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk. Unlike most other popular image-generating AI, Grok is relatively uncensored and will create images of public figures according to user instructions. For example, I was able to get Grok to generate (not particularly convincing) images of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris shaking hands with Adolf Hitler and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
X users have capitalized on this feature mostly for comedic effect. For example, a Grok-generated image of a heavily pregnant Harris paired with a beaming Donald Trump went viral earlier this month.
But concern rose when Trump shared what appeared to be several fake, AI-generated pictures depicting Taylor Swift fans endorsing him for president.
While these images were quickly identified as being false, the lawmakers still called on the FEC to essentially censor Grok and other AI models, writing that "This election cycle we have seen candidates use Artificial Intelligence (AI) in campaign ads to depict themselves or another candidate engaged in an action that did not happen or saying something the depicted candidate did not say," adding that X had developed "no policies that would allow the platform to restrict images of public figures that could be potentially misleading."
"The proliferation of deep-fake AI technology has the potential to severely misinform voters, causing confusion and disseminating dangerous falsehoods," the letter continued. "It is critical for our democracy that this be promptly addressed, noting the degree to which Grok-2 has already been used to distribute fake content regarding the 2024 presidential election."
The letter was written in support of regulations proposed by a 2023 petition from Public Citizen, a consumer-rights nonprofit. That petition suggested that the FEC clarify that it violates existing election law for candidates or their employees to use deepfakes to "fraudulently misrepresent" rivals.
A.I. "will almost certainly create the opportunity for political actors to deploy it to deceive voters in ways that extend well beyond any First Amendment protections for political expression, opinion, or satire," Public Citizen's petition reads. "A political actor may well be able to use AI technology to create a video that purports to show an opponent making an offensive statement or accepting a bribe. That video may then be disseminated with the intent and effect of persuading voters that the opponent said or did something they did not say or do."
But is tech censorship really the solution to possibly deceptive images? There's little reason to think that deepfakes are nearly as big a problem as Big Tech skeptics have warned.
After all, we've been pretty good at detecting deepfakes so far. Already-increasing skepticism toward media "may render AI deepfakes more akin to the annoyance of spam emails and prompt greater scrutiny of certain types of content more generally," Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, argued during 2023 testimony before the Senate Rules Committee. "History shows a societal ability to adapt to new challenges in understanding the veracity of information put before us and to avoid overly broad rushes to regulate everything but the kitchen sink for fear of what could happen."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The school marm leadership of the west is getting tiresome.
The Ingsoc leadership of the west is getting tiresome.
Government Almighty FORBID that we should determine for ourselves, WHO (such ass Marxist Mammary-BahnFarter-Fuhrer and JesseSPAZ) are LYING deep-fakes for the Deep-Derp Right-Wing Wrong-Nuts, etc.!!! All HAIL Alex Jones and His Elongated-Tusk-enabled GrokPot Fables!!! Because we peons can SNOT be trysted to finger it our for ourselves, w/o the HELP of Government Almighty!
Do you know what the article is about, Shillsy? You didn't read it, did you.
Wait—commenters read the articles?
I read it, AND I know twat shit's about, PervFect Twat!
Project much?
Also, did You PervFectly goad an AI into drawing a cuntvincing photo of PervFect You, WITH angel's wings, God's long white beard, and many halos? Throwing lightning bolts at ALL of Your billions and billions of inferiors?
Did the nurse take away your spellchecker?
You write like a boomer cosplaying as a 13 year old.
God, the fucking cringe...
>>Seven congressional Democrats called on the FEC to
violate 1A
How else can they save democracy?
(D)emocracy.
Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris shaking hands with Adolf Hitler and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
There was one recent US president who shook hands with one of them...
Was Hitler white or black?
Question, if the feds find the deepfakes offensive, what are the protocols surrounding moderation? I'll go consult the first amendment of the internet...
The protocol is to find the nearest conservative and put him in jail for a couple of years.
" . . . restrict images of public figures that could be potentially misleading."
Like Kween Kamala saying she didn't call to ban fracking?
Like the entire legacy media saying the Hunter laptop story was Russian disinformation?
Like Kween Kamala saying she wants a border wall?
Let's face it folks, one man's deepfake is another man's truth.
Look… it’s not fake if the government says it.
The deepfakes are worrisome, but not only specifically for electoral-related reasons. They are worrisome because they represent a type of fraud.
Obviously, images of Kamalamadingdong or Orange Julius shaking Hitler's hand are fake. But what about, say, an image of you kissing your ex, that is shared with your current partner? Perhaps, generated by your bitter ex who wants to break up your relationship? That could lead to real problems. Yes yes, before AI there was Photoshop, and before that there were photographic tricks and the like. But AI is much better than these now seemingly primitive tools.
I am sure there must be something in the case law that discusses some case that someone brought at some time about a relationship that dissolved due to essentially fraudulent behavior such as this. But IANAL.
The deepfakes are worrisome, but not only specifically for electoral-related reasons. They are worrisome because they represent a type of fraud.
As expected of our very best Oceanian citizen and inner party candidate.
“Yes yes, before AI there was Photoshop, and before that there were photographic tricks and the like. But AI is much better than these now seemingly primitive tools.”
Not yet. A photoshop by a talented person is still light years harder to detect than AI. Maybe not in ten years, but right now, absolutely.
By then the public will be far more experienced and skeptical of what they are seeing.
This is already obvious, and anyone who is warning against it has a secret motive of control and censorship.
This is exactly what I tell people who are worried about AI. It will force society to be much more skeptical of what they see in media. That's a good thing.
Not yet. A photoshop by a talented person is still light years harder to detect than AI. Maybe not in ten years, but right now, absolutely.
And photographic trickery before that, while maybe less verisimilitudinous depending on the subject, is inherently of greater veracity.
they represent a type of fraud
There are conservative Muslims who say writing fiction is forbidden because it is "lies". But it's no surprise that your views overlap with those of other authoritarians.
But can't AI detect AI? If you get a picture you ask AI if it's fake.
These are notoriously bad at detecting AI. The ones purportedly created to identify AI-generated essays for teachers have wrongly impugned many kids.
Weak minded jeff needs big brother to protect him.
My late brother used to tell me "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see". If he were still around I'm sure he would say "Don't believe the other half either".
How dumb do you have to be to think that any image on the internet is real?
False images are just another form of lying and when a lie becomes libel, it is legally actionable. The only surprise by the new censorians is that they didn't say that it was "for the children".
they didn’t say that it was “for the children”.
There is rising hysteria about artificially generated child porn.
The fake stuff is detestable and feeds urges that shouldn't be fed, but treating it as the real deal diminishes our argument against actual kiddie shit.
We ban child porn because an actual child was victimized during its production. With AI nothing is being victimized except some pixels.
And if we ban the fake stuff because it's horrible rather than victimizing, then we've changed the reason to matters of taste instead. And arguments about taste are far easier to dismantle than those against victimization.
The argument from the government is that fake content makes it harder to find and control the real content. Of course, making life easier for the Feds is rarely with worth it, regardless of the actual harm you are trying to avoid. I also hate murder, including abortion, but I am unwilling to turn our country into a police state to combat these things.
As far as I know, the SCotUS has ruled that prohibitions on virtual/fake child porn are fair game for regulation. I think it is a bad ruling, but there you go.
The big problem I see is that since it is all just AI, we are just doubling the subjectiveness. We have gone from "That picture of a real minor is subjectively determined to be sexual in nature so it is porn" (which is generally okay, but still prone to judgement) to "That artificially generated group of pixels subjectively represents a child and subjectively represents a sexual subject". When you consider that many AI generators produce dozens of pics that you don't use, it is possible that someone ends up with at least a couple pics on their drive that an eager DA could use to add on to charges in order to coerce a plea out of you.
Give them time.
Obviously the solution is to ban AI.
Safer to ban all speech in the interwebs.
Except of course for government announcements, and "news" from officially licensed media.
'On Monday, a group of Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), asking the agency to adopt regulations prohibiting the creation of deepfakes of election candidates.'
Sure. Will they next ask the FBI, Secret Service, and the Justice Department to stop with the deep fakes of lawfare?
Should it be pointed out that the law makes can write and enact a law to do this, the fact that they are running to a agency shows that there is no constitution.
First rule of being a politician or bureaucrat: Never accept personal responsibility for making any decision.
In the defence of the fec when I ask Google to generate an image of a nazi, I get a black guy.
In order to get grok to do that I have to ask for a nigger dressed as a nazi
These fuckers want to ban crayons and paper? What the fuck? They can eat my dick!
OT why isn't "Stranger in a Strange Land" a movie?
Because it's one of Heinlein's more unhinged and insane books one might think. I doubt it would translate to the screen very well, or that very many people would even want to see it.
Of course, while Starship Troopers was a terrible version of the book it was at least entertaining. Not so sure Verhoeven would be the right guy for Stranger in a Strange Land or Job: A Comedy of Justice.
"has the potential to severely misinform voters"
We already have politicians for that.
Yes, and they will (for example) promise us that the Mexicans will pay for our Big, Beautiful Walls! And-or, they will make shit ALL better for us, by cuntrolling food prices!
And the media.
Hey, speaking of that booming economy...
Uh-oh, an "AI" that isn't controlled by fascist Leftists. Kill it quick!
I am interested in how this pans out solely because Elon Musk (unwisely, IMHO) has just come out in support of California's AI regulations. He has a lot of good instincts, but he is no Libertarian, and I am hoping this wakes him up to how capricious any "problem solving" from the government really is.
... meh
https://billmoyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/dont-believe-the-meme.jpg