The Sleek, Sly Ways of Artificial Intelligence in a Crucial General Election

Will the General Election 2024 go down in history as one incubated in the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI)? A conclusive answer to this question will remain elusive, but three aspects can be pinpointed. One, the nature of this technology which manufactures synthetic reality is inherently covert. Two, it thrives in a public sphere like ours where truths have been greatly compromised and falsehoods masquerade as facts. Three, it leverages the digital illiteracy and ignorance of the Indian public.

The signs of its presence in this election season are undeniable. In fact, it has been creeping up on all of us through the last decade, and most specifically, over the last year. It has been used to build the aura of public figures. With a little assistance from AI, Prime Minister Narendra Modi can now appear as ‘Bhishma Pitamah’, complete with body armour and solar brooch on chest, vowing hundreds of thousands on Instagram. It is also thanks to AI that he can speak in several regional tongues simultaneously to audiences scattered across the land.

If AI can build reputations, it can destroy them as well. Recently, we saw how the comfort levels of two of Bollywood’s most prominent dudes were cruelly disrupted as inconvenient words were placed in their mouths that they most vehemently denied ever having pronounced. Which superstar in their right mind would in this day and age ever want to be caught saying things like “Modi failed to keep his campaign promises”?

AI has been also been used to resurrect the charismatic dead whose verbal eloquence is being sorely missed in the present-day electoral battle field – it was this that prompted the former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, M. Karunanidhi, to rise up from his grave on Marina Beach, complete with signature dark glasses and yellow shawl, to address fawning admirers in the DMK fold.

While every party with resources has climbed on the bandwagon of purveying distorted visuals and videos using more traditional editing means like Photoshop, the wide use of bots – computer programmes that work to simulate human interventions digitally without direct human agency – began to be noticed over the last decade. As a 2019 analysis by communications scholar Taberez Ahmed Neyazi pointed out, all major parties in India from 2014 onwards “appear to have deployed automation in digital messaging strategies to boost followers of their leaders on social media to disseminate party messages, troll opponents on Twitter, and make hashtags trend.”

The new aspect that AI brings to the table is the capacity to simulate human behaviour, as well as provide a life-like dimension to fake media content, and do so in an extremely efficient and increasingly affordable manner.

Recent elections in both Bangladesh and Pakistan provided interesting examples of election disruption caused by such technology. In Pakistan, Imran Khan kept his political ambitions afloat even as he found himself in jail as his country headed for a general election in late 2023. An AI generated text-to-audio clip soon circulated, bearing his distinct baritone. It shored up his political base immeasurably. This was followed by a four-minute peroration as people were preparing to vote, created through an AI tool. In the video, he urged his “beloved fellow Pakistanis” to vote in large numbers so that he could emerge victorious. It was reported to have electrified crowds, both online and offline, and was one of the main reasons why his proxies ended up winning more seats than any of the other contenders in the fray.

What then can we expect during the ongoing general election in this country with nearly 968 million going to the hustings? How likely are they to remain uninfluenced by blatant attempts to steal the people’s franchise by altering vote rolls and circulating AI-generated disinformation through fake accounts? In fact, the Indian voter has been identified by international rights bodies as being at the highest risk of media manipulation during the present election.

Their vulnerabilities are evident during all phases of the electoral process. In the months and weeks leading up to voting, attempts have been made to ensure that deepfake impersonations find a ready market. A Modi in a ‘Bhishma Pitamah’ avatar or a newly resurrected Karunanidhi are all grist for the propaganda mills of their respective parties. This is also the period when the capture and weaponisation of voter data in order to influence their voting behaviour, either through threat or cajolement, is a very real possibility. During the Karnataka assembly election of May 2023, the BJP candidate, C.N. Ashwathnarayan, who went on to win handsomely from his constituency of Malleswaram, was able to send personalised message to not just his voters but to their relatives as well – so effective were his data capturing technique.

The strategies that often go by the anodyne term “booth management” is really about multiple violations of voters’ rights, from their right to privacy to their right to freedom of speech and opinion.

The “silent period” between the end of the campaigning and the commencement of voting has also been adeptly used to circulate malefic content. Elections to Slovakia’s National Council were held last September. According to a Wired report, one of the parties exploited the 48-hour “silent period” to circulate an AI-generated video that showed their rivals discussing ways to rig the poll. This sly, sleight-of-hand ruse seemed to work because this lot went on to win.

The phase just before voting is an extremely sensitive one, when attempts are rife to discourage people from casting their ballots; pushing them into opting for a particular party; or just creating general public panic. AI-generated disinformation has been known to play extremely disruptive roles at such times, even in India. A well-known instance of this was the way the Congress party during the Telangana assembly election of 2023 – which it went on to win handsomely – utilised a short AI-generated video. It showed K.T. Rama Rao, son of then chief minister of the state and a leader of the incumbent party, the Bharat Rashtra Samithi, urging people to opt for the Congress rather than his own party. What was striking about this gambit was the finesse with which it was accomplished: it went viral just before people in the state set out to vote.

At every point of an election, voters are extremely vulnerable to deepfakes and rumour bombs and perhaps it is only by going through these experience at first hand, do some machine learning themselves, will they come to realise the potentially sinister impacts of this silent disruptor.

Computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton, who transformed AI and birthed generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT, had spoken about the AI technology in a speech he gave early this year at the University of Oxford. The challenge, he said, is that bad humans will give machines bad goals and use them for bad purposes such as mass disinformation, bio terrorism, cyberwarfare, and killer robots.

Bad people also kill elections, and use AI tools to do so.

+++

Foreign correspondents and their experience of the Indian government

• “Sixteen months ago, the Ministry of Home Affairs denied my right to work as a journalist, providing no reasons nor justifications, and no hearing. Since then, the Ministry has not once responded to my repeated requests for explanations or review of this arbitrary action”. (French Journalist Vanessa Dougnac Leaves India Amid Expulsion Threat’, February 16)
• “One of every two foreign correspondents is summoned by the Modi government to explain their reporting…Usually the summons came disguised as a friendly invitation, but just as soon as the tea had been poured, one minister or another would start berating us…” (‘Frequent Summons, Tea, a PR Machine to Behold: What Emily Schmall Said on Journalism in India’, April 17).
• “Last week, I (Avani Dias) had to leave India abruptly. The Modi Government told me my visa extension would be denied, saying my reporting ‘crossed a line’. After Australian Government intervention, I got a mere two-month extension…less than 24 hours before my flight.” (‘Was Told Report Crossed a Line: Visa Extension Delayed, Australian Correspondent Leaves India’, April 23)

The treatment of foreign journalists during their India tenures is creating news that the Modi government can ill afford. It has become something of a bellwether of press freedoms in India. The recent statements cited here from credible media professionals indicate the deep disconnect that the government has with ordinary democratic norms that should mark media functioning. Perhaps it has got so used to the kowtowing of the Indian media, which it kicks around at will, that it finds nothing wrong with bullying foreign correspondents, withholding their visas for “crossing lines”, and dishing out a dressing down with a cup of tea.

Sadly for the government, the foreign media corps is a different kettle of fish and will fight for its right to press freedoms, whether the government likes it or not. In an open letter to the government, 30 foreign correspondents expressed their outrage over the treatment accorded to Dias: “Ms Dias, who has covered India since January 2022, left the country on Friday (April 19), the first day of the election. She departed after the government told her that her reporting on the Sikh separatist movement (reporting that has since been blocked in India) had ‘crossed a line’ and they would not renew her journalism visa. Though she was granted a two-month visa extension the day before her departure, it was made clear to her that she would not receive accreditation to cover the election. Thus, though not technically expelling her, Indian authorities have effectively pushed out a foreign correspondent on the eve of an election that the government describes as the largest democratic exercise in the world.

“Foreign journalists in India have grappled with increased restrictions on visas and journalism permits for those holding the status of Overseas Citizen of India. The circumstances of Ms. Dias’s departure are further cause for concern. We call on the Indian government to facilitate the vital work of a free press in line with India’s democratic traditions.”

The new irascibility that marks the treatment of foreign journalists is almost certainly driven by the Modi government’s realisation that it is failing to get a good press. For a government that projects itself as a vishwaguru (teacher of the world) and is fond of throwing around homilies like vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the world is one family), this must hurt a lot. Perhaps that is why the Modi government was rather anxious to set the record straight in terms of Ms Dias’ departure, quickly stating that her claims were incorrect, misleading, and mischievous. Sources told the Indian media that Dias was in violation of visa rules while “undertaking her professional pursuits”, and that in spite of this, on her request, she was assured that her visa would be extended for the coverage of the general elections. Her visa was, according to them, extended till the end of June but she “chose to leave India” on April 20, adding that her claim that she was not being permitted to cover the elections was “factually incorrect.” All that one can say is that this rebuttal itself testifies to the acute embarrassment that Dias’ premature departure appears to have caused at the highest echelons of government.

Recently an apparatchik of the government, who had done a stint as CEO of Prasar Bharti, India’s public broadcaster, had loudly complained through an op-ed piece in The Indian Express that “the scale and complexity of democracy in India is poorly understood by much of the global media”. He ended with an eulogy on Indian democracy, which he claimed was vibrant and competitive, ending with the observation that “The Indian state has upheld the rule of law without compromising on constitutional values. By failing to make this critical distinction, those who are spelling doom on democracy in India have unwittingly reduced themselves to agents of partisan politics in India.”

+++

Readers write in…

A factual error

The Wire reader, Santosh Kumar, writes in: ‘In the report “In Kerala, it is Left vs Congress In Kerala, it Is Left vs Congress as the BJP Remains an Insignificant Force” (April 15),  there is a major factual error. It says BJP has fielded Rajeev Chandrasekhar In Thiruvananthapuram against Shashi Tharoor for the third time and Chandrasekhar had lost against Tharoor in 2009 and 20014. This is the first time Chandrasekhar is contesting a parliamentary election. Moreover Tharoor defeated CPI candidate Ramachandran Nair in 2009 and BJP veteran O. Rajagopal in 2014. In fact Rajagopal almost won the election in 2014. Tharoor pulled-off a miraculous victory in the last rounds. Wonder how the reporter could make such errors and how the Desk allowed it to go through. Moreover the article lacked objectivity, at least I felt so. Ground reality is that if CPM pulls off more than 2 seats it would be some miracle. Such is the popularity of Pinarayi Vijayan government!’

My response: Thank you for pointing out the  error. Happy to report that The Wire desk had indeed corrected it and the version of the story now on the website points this out: “Note: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Rajeev Chandrasekhar had contested from the Thiruvananthapuram constituency in 2014 and 2019. This is the first time he is contesting from the seat. The error is regretted.”

+++

Indian media don’t crawl, they drift

Long-time journalist and author, Sumanta Banerjee, comments on Backstory, titled ‘What Has Changed in the BJP Poll Campaign Since 2014 and What Hasn’t?’ (March 30): ‘While reviewing Modi’s electoral campaigns from 2014 till now, you’ve rightly exposed the collaborative/service role of what you describe as the ‘legacy media’ in promoting him as the ideal choice for the voters. But may I draw you attention to the way today’s ‘legacy media’ are also straying away from their legacy? Remember how Advani described the media during the Indira Gandhi regime?: “When asked to bend, they crawled.” Today they are giving up even the legacy of ‘crawling’ at the feet of the ruler. Media barons and reporters have given up their hands and feet that were needed for ‘crawling’ before their patrons. They lie on their backs in the murky river of politics to drift in whatever direction Modi wants.”

+++

Dismay over action against students at Columbia University

Suvrat Raju alerted us to this letter dated April 24 drafted by a small group of scientists in universities from across the world and addressed to the President of Columbia University (on behalf of the initial signatories Tarek Anous, Philip Argyres, Cyril Closset, Anne-Christine Davis, Seyda Ipek, Nabil Iqbal, Madalena Lemos, Mario Martone, Brian Nord, Suvrat Raju, Nausheen R. Shah, Brian Shuve, Thomas Van Riet, Tien-Tien Yu).

“Dear President Shafik: We are a group of scientists and academics based at universities across the world. We are writing to express our dismay at your decision to invite the New York Police Department to arrest pro-Palestinian protesters on your University’s campus.

“These protesters were demonstrating against the brutal Israeli offensive in Gaza, which has now entered its seventh month. During this period, Israel has killed more than 34,000 Palestinians, most of whom are women and children. The International Court of Justice has found that Israel’s campaign could plausibly amount to genocide. The international community has repeatedly called for Israel to halt this war; in December 2023, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution with an overwhelming majority calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. In spite of this, the United States has continued to bankroll this violence and has shielded Israel from diplomatic repercussions.

“The US media has failed to accurately portray the horrific impact of the war on ordinary Palestinians, and this has allowed the U.S. government to continue its indefensible policies. We applaud the protesters at Columbia and elsewhere in the United States for looking past this smokescreen. We commend their willingness to stand up to their own government in defense of Palestinian human rights and demand divestment from the military industrial complex in Israel. We are impressed by their efforts to build an inclusive coalition to peacefully advocate for these demands. Columbia should be proud of those members of its community who joined these protests. The protests at Columbia and other campuses are precisely the empathetic, informed and courageous actions that are required at the time of a crisis.

“Even if Columbia’s administration disagreed with the protesters, it was your responsibility to protect their rights to express their views. We understand that the protests were disruptive; however, this is the nature of protests, especially those concerning such serious issues. As Columbia University Professor Edward Said once wrote regarding his advocacy for Palestinian rights from inside the academy: ‘Our role is to widen the field of discussion, not to set limits in accord with the prevailing authority.’

“Your actions have weakened democratic norms within the university and undermined the university’s standing in the international academic community. We urge you to immediately revoke any disciplinary actions taken against the protesters and to take immediate steps to ensure that charges are dropped against those who were arrested.”

Write to ombudsperson@thewire.in