Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI United States Politics

Hillary Clinton, Election Officials Warn AI Could Threaten Elections (wsj.com) 255

Hillary Clinton and U.S. election officials said they are concerned disinformation generated and spread by AI could threaten the 2024 presidential election [non-paywalled link]. WSJ: Clinton, a former secretary of state and 2016 presidential candidate, said she thinks foreign actors like Russian President Vladimir Putin could use AI to interfere in elections in the U.S. and elsewhere. Dozens of countries are running elections this year. "Anybody who's not worried is not paying attention," Clinton said Thursday at Columbia University, where election officials and tech executives discussed how AI could impact global elections.

She added: "It could only be a very small handful of people in St. Petersburg or Moldova or wherever they are right now who are lighting the fire, but because of the algorithms everyone gets burned." Clinton said Putin tried to undermine her before the 2016 election by spreading disinformation on Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat about "all these terrible things" she purportedly did. "I don't think any of us understood it," she said. "I did not understand it. I can tell you my campaign did not understand it. The so-called dark web was filled with these kinds of memes and stories and videos of all sorts portraying me in all kinds of less than flattering ways." Clinton added: "What they did to me was primitive and what we're talking about now is the leap in technology."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hillary Clinton, Election Officials Warn AI Could Threaten Elections

Comments Filter:
  • by ihadafivedigituid ( 8391795 ) on Friday March 29, 2024 @11:07AM (#64353678)
    ... and she doesn't understand now.

    She lost because she was the one candidate who the country detested more than Donald Trump.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HBI ( 10338492 )

      The real question is why a Goldwater Girl from 1964 whose core views changed very little over all that time ended up as the Democratic nominee in 2016. The 'how' is discernible by looking at her various steps along the way, but the 'why' is the interesting question.

      • You get that the Overton Window has been pulled that far to the right, no? Obama was a center-right president. Bernie Sanders is a center-left politician. Joseph McCarthy might be dead, but we're stuck mainstreaming his idiot ideology. To wit, the Democrats have, for my entire life, pushed progressive and moderate voices aside so they can reach out to Republicans for "bipartisanship". Republicans continue to move to the right to distance themselves and draw the Democrats further to the right.
        • by sfcat ( 872532 ) on Friday March 29, 2024 @11:46AM (#64353824)

          That's a narrative without much substance. You only think that because you think that a traditional set of Marxist beliefs is somehow near or in the current Overton window. It isn't. That's why you never hear about the tree of ideas that come from Marx, because then people would reject those ideas out of hand. And while it isn't good to do that, it probably was for the best that they did. That's why you think of fascism as a right wing ideology. Fascism is literally raising the idea of the nation as the highest ideal. And that means that the liberty loving types you probably like to mock have little to nothing to do with Fascism yet what is the single most common political slur used against those types of people?

          You are confusing quite a few things when you call Obama center right. You have to remember, Obama basically couldn't pass any legislation through Congress. Almost every decision you associate him with is an executive order. And his executive orders range from center right position to far left positions. There were a lot of them and they were all over the spectrum. Many of his policies aged like milk and I voted for him 2x. So perhaps that was for the best.

          Finally, you are confusing the soup that is political discussion online with actual politics. 90% of posts are from 1% of the population. And in general those people neither represent the voters nor have any real sway in the long run. And again, this is probably for they best. They are the folks with too much time on their hands and usually let their emotions cloud their judgement. That's why they enjoy shit-posting on political topics, they just have that right set of personality traits. But they are still just 1% of the population and they really don't have much influence except among political scientists who don't understand sampling bias.

        • Don't know what your smoking but you better start sharing.

        • Joseph McCarthy might be dead, but we're stuck mainstreaming his idiot ideology.

          McCarthy may have been an antisemitic and homophobic douchebag, but the GOP could still use someone like that to weed out all the members still longing to kiss KGB ass.

          • The funny thing about McCarthy is he was right. His methods were pretty shitty and he was an alcoholic and the rest but there really were commies everywhere.

            My dad was one of them. He got called up before one of Joe's committees for the standard "are you now or have you ever been?" line of questioning and only escaped because he had a few friends in high places. But he was absolutely 100% hard core red at the time.

            Later on he softened his positions and turned into the typical ultra far left democrat but

      • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday March 29, 2024 @11:43AM (#64353818)

        Because today's MAGA party would call Ronald Reagan a woke liberal if they took a look at his policies.

        • by HBI ( 10338492 )

          To be fair, Reagan's line was "I didn't leave the Democratic party, they left me". In a sense, he sounded way more like Harry Truman than Carter did. Carter just couldn't help but sounding like a dweeb, a policy wonk. Running someone like Mondale [reaganlibrary.gov] against Reagan in 1980 would have worked better. By 1984 the whole cult of personality thing was working for Reagan. FDR himself would have lost.

          The John Birch nativism that pervades the MAGA thing was antithetical to Reagan.

      • by Targon ( 17348 )
        This goes to the heart of how the political system as been breaking down in the USA over the past 40 years. What we had was the Republican Party pushing further and further to the right. Now, those who were more moderate saw that they were being pushed out, so they jumped to the Democratic Party. Now, over time, this has driven the Democratic Party further to the right from where it used to be, to the point where many, if not most Democrats, are more like the Republican Party was back in the 1950s and
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It wasn't even her politics that cost her the election, it's her inept tactics. She spent most of her campaign in states like New York and Massachusetts that are so solidly blue that she couldn't have lost them if she tried. Not only that, she completely ignored the battleground states that she needed to win, letting Trump take them by default. Of course, she only got the nomination because she insisted that it was her turn and she had the clout to make the leadership let her have it, but when it comes d
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Yes, all true. But pointing this out is "trolling".

        She's not the only one who doesn't get it, and this is how we get more Trump.

        Disclaimer: I voted Green in 2016 and 2020.
        • Trump is running with the same flaws that Clinton had: he's not attracting undecided voters instead campaigning to the true believers, has a divisive attitude, and refuses to believe he's not as popular as he thinks he is. Of course, Trump has a whole set of additional flaws.

          • I suggest you pay closer attention to the polling. Trump is picking up significant support among hispanic and black voters, which ought to scare the hell out of the (D) team.

            But as usual "it's the economy, stupid", and 2024 is not going to be good for voters who are deciding whether to vote for a "a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" and his singularly inept running mate.

            I'm almost certainly voting Green for the third election in a row.
            • As opposed to ill-meaning elderly man with a poor memory, slurring of words, mumbling at rallies, lying under oath, already-convicted-of-two-crimes-so-far senile guy?

              • Biden isn't likely to produce a strong turnout, genius. That's the point. I'm a Green voter, save the whataboutism for someone who cares.

                Also, please direct our attention to Trump's criminal convictions. Links, please. Don't try to weasel out when your lack of understanding of the difference between civil actions and criminal prosecutions is revealed.
                • He was convicted of fraud, though it was a civil case it's normally a criminal conviction. And he's been judge to be guilty of sexual assault in E Jean Carrol case, which was a lawsuit not criminal trial, but the judgement is for what is normally a crime. It was not treated as a crime because of the statue of limitations - the Adult Survivors Act allows for lawsuits beyond the statute of limitations. But that still has two courts with a finding that a criminal act was committed, even if it was not a crimi

                  • Once again because you evidently can't read:

                    "Don't try to weasel out when your lack of understanding of the difference between civil actions and criminal prosecutions is revealed."
      • Indeed. I am no fan of Mrs. Clinton but she ran a terrible campaign. No, you wouldn't expect to see her in Idaho or Wyoming, but you would expect to see her in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. No politician gives a damn about the people he or she supposedly represent. Oh well, we'll be having worldwide nuclear war any day now, so it won't matter.
    • So I didn't worry about voting. Can't say if it would have mattered, but I doubt I'm the only one.

      That's what the Trump campaign did for me. It cemented the fact there are a LOT of truly crazy, powerful people in the world, and that the world is not logical like I assumed. That humans perceive what they believe. It can be impossible to alter a deeply held belief.

      Oh, and it's testing the "if the president does it, it becomes legal" idea from Karl Rove (Right? Wasn't he the one who thought that one up? [

      • Bravo, super interesting post.

        I always associated the rise of the "unitary executive" theory with Darth Cheney, but now you make me want to go read some history.

        I've been preaching UBI for a long time, and yeah--something has to give if the machines come for all our jerbs.
    • Well, you got so lucky that instead of her you elected a stupid, greedy and traitorous ape.

      Let's hope you don't make the mistake of re-electing that stooge of the Deep State, Biden, in November, you richly deserve another 30 years of the donald.

  • AI robo calls can fake voices and endorse trump!

    • But that trick only works on people who are gullible enough to listen to those calls and believe that it's really the candidate and willing to remember to vote (and who they were told to vote for) when the time comes.
    • by msauve ( 701917 )
      Hillary can just wipe them out, like with a cloth or something.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ... when in reality it was more like 1/3.

    • by Targon ( 17348 )
      And looking at the Trump supporters, she was right, in the same way a broken clock is correct twice a day.
    • by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Friday March 29, 2024 @02:00PM (#64354202)

      This dumbass called 1/4 of voters 'deplorable' when in reality it was more like 1/3.

      Sure and America lost its collective shit over that comment at the time. Yet today, ten years later, after these people stormed the US capitol with the intention of invalidating a presidential election, extrajudicially executing vice president of the United States Mike Pence and speaker Nanci Pelosi, after they murdered a police officer, beat up a bunch of police officers with poles carrying American flags, trashed the building and smeared their own excrement all over the inside of it, Hillary Clinton calling these people merely 'deplorable' seems like a pretty polite description.

  • Clickbait (Score:2, Troll)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
    nobody cares what Hilary Clinton says except a handful of reactionaries, but dropping her name is guaranteed hate clicks. Like how that terrible Velma show is getting a second season.
    • ... because I've seen HRCs name pop up a lot recently. And that might be a sign that something is happening to Old Joe. And the DNC is prepping her as a replacement candidate in the event a silver alert goes out for Biden's Corvette.

      • Hilary would never and could never be old Joes replacment. She is hated as much by democrats.

        Look at it this way she is hated so much she lost to a loser like Trump. Just wish she would shut up

        • "Just wish she would shut up"

          Then you'd better Pokemon go to the polls :D

          Bill Clinton was slicker than snot. Hillary is dumber than snot, at least when it comes to crowd work. Politics don't matter as much as image matters, and Hillary is like the boss Karen.

  • Cope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Friday March 29, 2024 @11:26AM (#64353760) Homepage

    Look, I voted for her.

    Her campaign was full of meaningless "it's her time" messaging. The DNC literally conspired to help her win the primary, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning after evidence was leaked and then immediately joining Hillary's campaign. As a progressive, I really disliked Hillary.

    When she finally faced off against Trump, half the time she just didn't seem to know how to react, and the rest of the time she'd just smile and act "above it all" rather than tackle him head-on. What have we learned since that election about how conservatives react to being looked down on?

    Yes, there's been a ridiculous amount of shit flung at her. Biden's been getting the same treatment. But it's not why she lost. That she still comes up for air every now and then just to repeat this dilusion is insane. She was a bad candidate.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      half the time she just didn't seem to know how to react

      In her defence, most of the world didn't know how to react to Trump. We all collectively thought that his insane ramblings would mean he had zero chance of actually winning so acting above it all and flustered seemed to be a not so bad strategy.

      Unfortunately the world is stranger than fiction and slightly less than half of voters (just remember that you wonderful democracy, the less popular guy ran the country) propelled the weirdo into power.

      That she still comes up for air every now and then just to repeat this dilusion is insane.

      Whether she was a bad candidate or not doesn't have any bearing o

      • She's not wrong about propaganda being more technically advanced and dangerous than ever. I wasn't commenting on that.

        I do think she should just stay away from politics near election times. There is always going to be someone more appropriate to say this, who won't add an agenda trying to blame her embarrasing loss on it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        We all collectively thought that his insane ramblings would mean he had zero chance of actually winning.

        Y'all clearly haven't spent much time in Texas.

      • It might be true, but what use is harping about it? Some things are better left unsaid in the public sphere, leave it to academia.

        In politics I view discourse about disinformation as a run up to censorship.

      • "I don't know how he got elected! No one I know voted for him!"

        Classic!

        You live in a bubble.

    • "It's her turn!" Fuck that. It was an offensive slogan, brimming with sexism and entitlement. It pushed away voters.
      (I would have loved to see Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse as First Husband.. no power, just schmoozing and glad-handing with the international elites -having fun and making back-room deals were his strengths.)

      Her time is past. The only positive is that she sends Trump into a frothing hate-filled rant when she speaks out -and that is entertaining, from a distance.

      Retire. Stay out of it

    • I didn't vote for either of them, but back when she was running, on the topics that I was concerned about, both Hillary and trump were very similar in their views. For me, I saw a vote for either one of them being mostly equal.
      the one thing I recall being the primary difference I saw: trump talks a lot and tends to try to do what he says he's going to do. Hillary, seemed to say what she thought you wanted to hear, then would go and do whatever she felt like doing, even if it was the opposite of what she had

    • Well, if you think about one of the big campaign slogans, "I'm with Her" -- shouldn't it have been "She's with me!" You know, like ... a politician to make life better for the people of the country he or she represents? Oh well.
      • I'm not sure it's much worse than MAGA, which implies that at some point America stopped being great and needs to be restored to its former glory.

        • What's wrong with that?

          Our economy is teetering, the military is a wreck, foreign policy is childish, we get humiliated on the world stage regularly, we don't have a border, several large states no longer believe in crime, how much worse would it have to be before you want to make it great again? What's so great about all that?

  • AI Hillary Clinton: "It was the alien invasions that caused me to lose in 2016!"
  • with their pied piper campaign strategy.. so why should I care about her opinion on elections?
  • So what? Will there be a noticeable difference in the lies?

Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

Working...