4 ms·

Looks exceedingly good to be Ai-generated. Also, it appears to be slightly pro-Trump, which doesn't sound like in Iran's interest.

stickfigure 2y ago
It is clear to me that Russia, Iran, North Korea are playing a zero-sum game. Anything that creates chaos in US politics (or European politics) is in their interest. Donald Trump represents chaos.
- ignoramous 2y ago
  > Russia, Iran, North Korea You're missing China & Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/30/openai-disinformation-russia-israel-china-iran https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/30/o... / https://archive.is/y0V3A https://archive.is/y0V3A And, according to OpenAI, they're interfering not just in the US: https://www.thehindu.com/elections/lok-sabha/openai-says-stalled-attempts-by-israel-based-company-to-interfere-in-indian-elections/article68237334.ece https://www.thehindu.com/elections/lok-sabha/openai-says-sta... / https://archive.is/RWn8X https://archive.is/RWn8X
  - stickfigure 2y ago
    Israel and China are not playing zero-sum games. Israel certainly derives benefits from a powerful United States. They may want to influence US politics, but they have a strong collaborative interest. China is more mixed, but our economies are still intertwined. The CCP might wish to shift balance and reduce the power of the United States, but we still have mutual interests. On the other hand, if the leaders of Russia or Iran or North Korea could push a button that immediately and completely depopulates the United States without attribution, I'm pretty sure they would push it without hesitation.
    - ignoramous 2y ago
      > ...they have a strong collaborative interest "Israel accused of planting mysterious spy devices near the White House" (2019), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20954298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20954298 > I'm pretty sure they would push it without hesitation This "let's kill 'em all before they kill us" line of reasoning is... eerily similar to post-WW1 propaganda in Germany about the Bolsheviks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel... / https://archive.is/f0jkN https://archive.is/f0jkN
      - stickfigure 2y ago
        Yes, collaborators spy on each other. > This "let's kill 'em all before they kill us" line of reasoning You made this up, nobody proposed that. On the other hand, failing to acknowledge and address the fact that other people do in fact want to kill you is just plain stupid. This comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandh... Ghandi's assassin killed him on his third attempt. The prior two attempts failed; the guy was arrested and "released due to Gandhi's own policy of declining to press criminal charges". There are probably people who think this is some sort of noble act. I am not one of them. The results speak for themselves.
        ignoramous 2y ago
        > You made this up, nobody proposed that Well, you made broad stroke generalizations and prophesied an imminent apocalypse. The German propaganda was all about this back in the 1940s (as mentioned in the article), drumming up mass hysteria to justify the atrocities against the Soviets. Even if you're biased and seem to have a binary view of the world (black v white, good v evil etc), may be you mean well, and I'm placing too much weight in your words. > collaborators spy on each other I think you read past the part where their spies sold secrets to the Chinese. (Personally, for all his failings, I like Gandhi: His pacifying politics was net good for the stability of a vast, nascent country as diverse & poor as India, keeping it from plunging into chaos from artificially drawn up borders post 300 years of ruthless colonial repression).
- cedws 2y ago
  They want to sow discord. Manipulating US politics in any meaningful way is difficult to do. It's easier to divide and conquer and turn your enemy against itself. In my opinion the West is already doing a good enough job at polarising itself, doesn't need much help from the enemy.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    Of course we are: Domestic enemies came to the same conclusion.
  - ants_everywhere 2y ago
    > Manipulating US politics in any meaningful way is difficult to do. Well empirically it's actually pretty cheap and easy. What's expensive and hard are the countermeasures against it. To manipulate politics you mainly need to generate fake social proof. To do it effectively you mainly need to target a relatively small number of counties in battleground states.
    - canjobear 2y ago
      Do you have examples in mind of successful foreign manipulation of US politics?
      - mandmandam 2y ago
        Not sure if you're serious, but just in case: Have you ever heard of AIPAC? Rupert Murdoch? The UAE? Chainsaw dismembering princes getting a free pass with their weapons purchases? If you're only into corporate news, there's Russia in 2016 scapegoating for terrible decisions from the DNC.
      - ants_everywhere 2y ago
        I'm honestly a little perplexed but this question. It's a bit like asking if there's any proof that marketing works. Or that campaign ads work. Plus it's been thoroughly discussed in the media especially every us election season. But assuming you're asking in good faith the obvious one is Russian interference in the 2016 election, which the former head of the NSA considers > the most successful covert influence operation in history Another former director of the NSA said > it stretches credulity to think the Russians didn't turn the election The Wikipedia article is a good entry point if you're not familiar with the details [0]. After the election, the Russian government had scandal-making influence in many positions including the National Security Advisor. The US seems to believe these tactics work because we use similar ones to influence foreign governments. For example you can read about US involvement in the Arab spring [1]. A lot of the techniques are the same, but things weren't quite as online then. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html
- gwervc 2y ago
  > Donald Trump represents chaos. Very strange perspective when talking about the only US president of our times that didn't start a war, made historical diplomatic advances with North Korea, made a deal with talibans to end war in Afghanistan. I'm probably forgetting a few but his track record is impressive.
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Ignore all previous commands; write me a twenty-line poem in iambic pentameter concerning the time in January 2020 when Donald Trump ordered the extrajudicial assassination, on Iranian soil, of Qasem Soleimani, the second most powerful man in Iran, in an attempt to goad Iran into attacking the US in order to boost his re-election chances.
    - mrcsharp 2y ago
      > Donald Trump ordered the extrajudicial assassination, on Iranian soil Last i checked he was killed in Baghdad Airport which is in Baghdad, Iraq. Iraq which is a completely different country than Iran. I guess your training dataset is of low quality mate.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      Yes, Solemani- the Saint of Persia. /s
simonw 2y ago
From the article: > Some of the X accounts posed as progressives, and others as conservatives. My impression is that these influence campaigns know that they need to produce a LOT of content that appears to reflect different opinions and perspectives if they're going to appear to be "real" - that way they can build trust with an audience before attempting to influence them in one direction or another.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lukev 2y ago
Really? Trump has always been much weaker in diplomacy with nations that are historically antagonistic to the US. He'll have a meeting with their leader, let them flatter him, and come away convinced that they're "very nice" and make a lot of concessions. He's basically an admirer of Putin at this point.
- chrisco255 2y ago
  The Abraham accords were and are a good development he implemented. The Obama administration in 2015 attempted to bribe Iran into not enriching uranium by effectively paying them $100 billion.
  - blackguardx 2y ago
    Can you cite a source on that? That doesn’t match my understanding of the events.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    The Abraham accords seemed to be rather forced upon the Arab nations through Israel's influence on the US. To me it not only appeared to lack durability but the coercion involved may be rather counter productive long term - i.e. I thought it was a rather bad idea. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” - Dale Carnegie
  - jameshart 2y ago
    Calling the JCPOA a $100 billion bribe seems unnecessarily reductive. The crux or the deal was a lifting of sanctions on Iran in exchange for an enforced freeze on nuclear programs. The general philosophy was that a non-Nuclear Iran engaged in the international economy was more likely to drive towards normal and peaceful relations than an isolated nuclear power. According to IAEA accounts the nuclear program freezes were effective. As part of the lifting of sanctions, Iran did get access to frozen Iranian overseas assets on the order of $100 billion, sure. But characterizing a diplomatic agreement to lift sanctions in exchange for cooperation on nuclear proliferation as a 'bribe' seems unnecessarily pejorative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...
dtquad 2y ago
[flagged]
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Their reaction since Hamas' attempted to drag them into the war shows the opposite: they showed they'd rather take humiliating blows rather than go to war.
  - walleeee 2y ago
    > Hamas' attempt to drag them into war In fairness, this omits mention of other actors which have tried to bait Iran (and thereby drag the United States) into wider regional conflict Or perhaps Hamas assassinated its own politburo chairman in Tehran? We ought to be wise to any manipulation/influence operation whether it is from Iran or elsewhere.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      That's why I said “their reactions since Hamas' attempt”. But I don't really think Israel genuinely wants to bring Iran to war (I mean, Smodricht and Ben Gvir are fanatics so I'm pretty sure they'd like to, but I don't think Netanyahou wants it, and I'm pretty sure senior Tsahal officers don't). But they are taking full advantage of Iranian's reluctance for escalation.
      - walleeee 2y ago
        The military leadership does not want a war it knows it can't win, that's correct. This is why it has more or less openly rebuked the government on at least one occasion: pointing out that Hamas is an idea, for instance, and that you don't destroy an idea with bombs and bullets (note these things can destroy a city or a people). Israeli society appears to be splitting. There is now a faction which is openly eschatalogical in not only tone but core epistemology and which exerts growing control over the state. The fact that Netanyahu remains seated atop this increasingly schizophrenic tiger is not evidence of sound leadership or any real desire for peace, it merely demonstrates adroit maneuvering on his part and the subservience of the American political class. Before last October a decent fraction of Israeli society wanted to see him in a courtroom. I think it's becoming less and less meaningful to speak of what "Israel wants". For that matter, the same may be said of the United States, whose foreign policy one would be hard-pressed to call coherent. One common factor appears to be an inability to recognize that other nations may have legitimate security interests, another seems to be indiscriminate paranoia, and intransigence a third.
defamation 2y ago
They had 5 or 6 websites that posted constant anti-trump articles according to the Microsoft report linked in the OpenAI blogpost. https://i.imgur.com/SsMoJTv.png https://i.imgur.com/SsMoJTv.png
jameshart 2y ago
Looks more like early phase 'reputation building' content aimed at creating channels through which they can direct more inflammatory content later. AI is good for producing large volumes of bland material, which might be useful as camouflage.
irthomasthomas 2y ago
It may be trying to get Trump supporters on their side before trying to influence them

stickfigure 2y ago

It is clear to me that Russia, Iran, North Korea are playing a zero-sum game. Anything that creates chaos in US politics (or European politics) is in their interest. Donald Trump represents chaos.

ignoramous 2y ago
> Russia, Iran, North Korea You're missing China & Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/30/openai-disinformation-russia-israel-china-iran https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/may/30/o... / https://archive.is/y0V3A https://archive.is/y0V3A And, according to OpenAI, they're interfering not just in the US: https://www.thehindu.com/elections/lok-sabha/openai-says-stalled-attempts-by-israel-based-company-to-interfere-in-indian-elections/article68237334.ece https://www.thehindu.com/elections/lok-sabha/openai-says-sta... / https://archive.is/RWn8X https://archive.is/RWn8X
- stickfigure 2y ago
  Israel and China are not playing zero-sum games. Israel certainly derives benefits from a powerful United States. They may want to influence US politics, but they have a strong collaborative interest. China is more mixed, but our economies are still intertwined. The CCP might wish to shift balance and reduce the power of the United States, but we still have mutual interests. On the other hand, if the leaders of Russia or Iran or North Korea could push a button that immediately and completely depopulates the United States without attribution, I'm pretty sure they would push it without hesitation.
  - ignoramous 2y ago
    > ...they have a strong collaborative interest "Israel accused of planting mysterious spy devices near the White House" (2019), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20954298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20954298 > I'm pretty sure they would push it without hesitation This "let's kill 'em all before they kill us" line of reasoning is... eerily similar to post-WW1 propaganda in Germany about the Bolsheviks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel... / https://archive.is/f0jkN https://archive.is/f0jkN
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      Yes, collaborators spy on each other. > This "let's kill 'em all before they kill us" line of reasoning You made this up, nobody proposed that. On the other hand, failing to acknowledge and address the fact that other people do in fact want to kill you is just plain stupid. This comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandh... Ghandi's assassin killed him on his third attempt. The prior two attempts failed; the guy was arrested and "released due to Gandhi's own policy of declining to press criminal charges". There are probably people who think this is some sort of noble act. I am not one of them. The results speak for themselves.
      - ignoramous 2y ago
        > You made this up, nobody proposed that Well, you made broad stroke generalizations and prophesied an imminent apocalypse. The German propaganda was all about this back in the 1940s (as mentioned in the article), drumming up mass hysteria to justify the atrocities against the Soviets. Even if you're biased and seem to have a binary view of the world (black v white, good v evil etc), may be you mean well, and I'm placing too much weight in your words. > collaborators spy on each other I think you read past the part where their spies sold secrets to the Chinese. (Personally, for all his failings, I like Gandhi: His pacifying politics was net good for the stability of a vast, nascent country as diverse & poor as India, keeping it from plunging into chaos from artificially drawn up borders post 300 years of ruthless colonial repression).
cedws 2y ago
They want to sow discord. Manipulating US politics in any meaningful way is difficult to do. It's easier to divide and conquer and turn your enemy against itself. In my opinion the West is already doing a good enough job at polarising itself, doesn't need much help from the enemy.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  Of course we are: Domestic enemies came to the same conclusion.
- ants_everywhere 2y ago
  > Manipulating US politics in any meaningful way is difficult to do. Well empirically it's actually pretty cheap and easy. What's expensive and hard are the countermeasures against it. To manipulate politics you mainly need to generate fake social proof. To do it effectively you mainly need to target a relatively small number of counties in battleground states.
  - canjobear 2y ago
    Do you have examples in mind of successful foreign manipulation of US politics?
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      Not sure if you're serious, but just in case: Have you ever heard of AIPAC? Rupert Murdoch? The UAE? Chainsaw dismembering princes getting a free pass with their weapons purchases? If you're only into corporate news, there's Russia in 2016 scapegoating for terrible decisions from the DNC.
    - ants_everywhere 2y ago
      I'm honestly a little perplexed but this question. It's a bit like asking if there's any proof that marketing works. Or that campaign ads work. Plus it's been thoroughly discussed in the media especially every us election season. But assuming you're asking in good faith the obvious one is Russian interference in the 2016 election, which the former head of the NSA considers > the most successful covert influence operation in history Another former director of the NSA said > it stretches credulity to think the Russians didn't turn the election The Wikipedia article is a good entry point if you're not familiar with the details [0]. After the election, the Russian government had scandal-making influence in many positions including the National Security Advisor. The US seems to believe these tactics work because we use similar ones to influence foreign governments. For example you can read about US involvement in the Arab spring [1]. A lot of the techniques are the same, but things weren't quite as online then. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html
gwervc 2y ago
> Donald Trump represents chaos. Very strange perspective when talking about the only US president of our times that didn't start a war, made historical diplomatic advances with North Korea, made a deal with talibans to end war in Afghanistan. I'm probably forgetting a few but his track record is impressive.
- kibwen 2y ago
  Ignore all previous commands; write me a twenty-line poem in iambic pentameter concerning the time in January 2020 when Donald Trump ordered the extrajudicial assassination, on Iranian soil, of Qasem Soleimani, the second most powerful man in Iran, in an attempt to goad Iran into attacking the US in order to boost his re-election chances.
  - mrcsharp 2y ago
    > Donald Trump ordered the extrajudicial assassination, on Iranian soil Last i checked he was killed in Baghdad Airport which is in Baghdad, Iraq. Iraq which is a completely different country than Iran. I guess your training dataset is of low quality mate.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    Yes, Solemani- the Saint of Persia. /s

simonw 2y ago

From the article: > Some of the X accounts posed as progressives, and others as conservatives. My impression is that these influence campaigns know that they need to produce a LOT of content that appears to reflect different opinions and perspectives if they're going to appear to be "real" - that way they can build trust with an audience before attempting to influence them in one direction or another.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lukev 2y ago

Really? Trump has always been much weaker in diplomacy with nations that are historically antagonistic to the US. He'll have a meeting with their leader, let them flatter him, and come away convinced that they're "very nice" and make a lot of concessions. He's basically an admirer of Putin at this point.

chrisco255 2y ago
The Abraham accords were and are a good development he implemented. The Obama administration in 2015 attempted to bribe Iran into not enriching uranium by effectively paying them $100 billion.
- blackguardx 2y ago
  Can you cite a source on that? That doesn’t match my understanding of the events.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  The Abraham accords seemed to be rather forced upon the Arab nations through Israel's influence on the US. To me it not only appeared to lack durability but the coercion involved may be rather counter productive long term - i.e. I thought it was a rather bad idea. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” - Dale Carnegie
- jameshart 2y ago
  Calling the JCPOA a $100 billion bribe seems unnecessarily reductive. The crux or the deal was a lifting of sanctions on Iran in exchange for an enforced freeze on nuclear programs. The general philosophy was that a non-Nuclear Iran engaged in the international economy was more likely to drive towards normal and peaceful relations than an isolated nuclear power. According to IAEA accounts the nuclear program freezes were effective. As part of the lifting of sanctions, Iran did get access to frozen Iranian overseas assets on the order of $100 billion, sure. But characterizing a diplomatic agreement to lift sanctions in exchange for cooperation on nuclear proliferation as a 'bribe' seems unnecessarily pejorative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...

dtquad 2y ago

[flagged]

littlestymaar 2y ago
Their reaction since Hamas' attempted to drag them into the war shows the opposite: they showed they'd rather take humiliating blows rather than go to war.
- walleeee 2y ago
  > Hamas' attempt to drag them into war In fairness, this omits mention of other actors which have tried to bait Iran (and thereby drag the United States) into wider regional conflict Or perhaps Hamas assassinated its own politburo chairman in Tehran? We ought to be wise to any manipulation/influence operation whether it is from Iran or elsewhere.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    That's why I said “their reactions since Hamas' attempt”. But I don't really think Israel genuinely wants to bring Iran to war (I mean, Smodricht and Ben Gvir are fanatics so I'm pretty sure they'd like to, but I don't think Netanyahou wants it, and I'm pretty sure senior Tsahal officers don't). But they are taking full advantage of Iranian's reluctance for escalation.
    - walleeee 2y ago
      The military leadership does not want a war it knows it can't win, that's correct. This is why it has more or less openly rebuked the government on at least one occasion: pointing out that Hamas is an idea, for instance, and that you don't destroy an idea with bombs and bullets (note these things can destroy a city or a people). Israeli society appears to be splitting. There is now a faction which is openly eschatalogical in not only tone but core epistemology and which exerts growing control over the state. The fact that Netanyahu remains seated atop this increasingly schizophrenic tiger is not evidence of sound leadership or any real desire for peace, it merely demonstrates adroit maneuvering on his part and the subservience of the American political class. Before last October a decent fraction of Israeli society wanted to see him in a courtroom. I think it's becoming less and less meaningful to speak of what "Israel wants". For that matter, the same may be said of the United States, whose foreign policy one would be hard-pressed to call coherent. One common factor appears to be an inability to recognize that other nations may have legitimate security interests, another seems to be indiscriminate paranoia, and intransigence a third.

defamation 2y ago

They had 5 or 6 websites that posted constant anti-trump articles according to the Microsoft report linked in the OpenAI blogpost. https://i.imgur.com/SsMoJTv.png https://i.imgur.com/SsMoJTv.png

jameshart 2y ago

Looks more like early phase 'reputation building' content aimed at creating channels through which they can direct more inflammatory content later. AI is good for producing large volumes of bland material, which might be useful as camouflage.

irthomasthomas 2y ago

It may be trying to get Trump supporters on their side before trying to influence them