Laura McClure: The Deepfake Bill, Free Speech, and Where the Law Draws the Line | Free to Speak

ACT MP Laura McClure joins Dane Giraud to talk about her Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill, which passed its first reading unanimously and is now before select committee. The bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 and the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 so that AI-generated sexual images are treated the same in law as non-consensual intimate recordings. McClure explains why she made a deepfake of herself, why she held the blurred image up in Parliament, and the gap in the law the bill is designed to close. She and Dane work through the questions that matter most for free expression: where satire and parody end and abuse begins, how you define what is sexually explicit without capturing comedy or art, and why she targets the behaviour of creating and sharing this content rather than the technology itself. Along the way they get into charter schools, the limits of AI, and why so few people are honest about how much they already use it. Free to Speak is the podcast of the New Zealand Free Speech Union. Hosted by Dane Giraud.

Transcript

Welcome And Why Free Speech Matters

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Welcome to Free to Speak, the New Zealand Free Speech Union podcast. If you enjoy the show, subscribe for uncensored conversations and free speech news from New Zealand and beyond.

SPEAKER_02 0:11

Kioda, and welcome to Free to Speak, the official podcast of the New Zealand Free Speech Union. I am your host, Dane Giroud, Councilmember of the Free Speech Union, and joining us today is Act MP Laura McClure. Kyota, Laura, good to have you with us.

SPEAKER_01 0:26

Kyota, nice to be here, Dane.

SPEAKER_02 0:29

Great. So we're going to be talking about your deep fake digital harm and exploitation bill. But let's just start by getting a little bit more of a sense of you, because I've read up on you a little bit. I don't know how much our people will know. Our people may know quite a bit, to be honest, but um you being getting into politics wasn't necessarily an expected path for you.

SPEAKER_01 0:53

No, absolutely. Look, if you were to ask me 10 years ago, um, where would I be? It certainly wouldn't be sitting as a member of parliament. Um, and most certainly not under the current circumstances. So um everything's changed, I would say. And what are those changes for a lot of people? It was COVID. And for me, definitely COVID was an eye-opener into all kinds of different things, but really

COVID And The Path Into Politics

SPEAKER_01 1:20

got me more politically engaged on certain issues. And one of those ones was education. As being a parent, I was seeing what kind of work was coming home from my kids and started, you know, actually looking at it properly because busy working parents don't always have oversight of their kids' education. And that was it was quite scary to see the lack of the basics being taught. And um it really got me looking into education policies and being a bit more political. And I really love charter schools and what they offer because um I know within my family and friend circles there are kids that have either fallen through the gaps or have things like neurodiversity. So mainstream school just isn't the answer. And I think charter schools um is a great opportunity to do things differently and and receive state funding because quite a few families can't afford the things like private schools and stuff like that. So yeah, it's one of the one of the key drivers of getting into parliament.

SPEAKER_02 2:21

Oh, great. Yeah, I noticed that actually during COVID. My um one of my boys was bringing back homework and I was reading it going, oh man, you're like, you're 15. This is this seems like rather basic. It's kind of and it made me think, have I forgotten what I was learning at the time? But what I was learning seemed to be a bit more robust.

SPEAKER_01 2:40

That's something. See, that's a problem. Like my son's about to be year nine, and now I can't help him with any of his math. So that's a sigh that things are actually improving. Um and he's improved because it's well above my head. But yeah, if my 15-year-old brought home work, I'd be really concerned if it was too easy for me. Because you you do you do forget, but you tend to forget the basics about yourself.

SPEAKER_02 3:03

Yeah, I I like China schools too. Um, I don't know why they left her such an issue with them because culturally um you can be a lot more uh well, you can serve people of with different, you know, uh families of different um uh cultures and and and values and and principles. Like I think for Maori it's been wonderful having that option of charter school. So it's always struck me as an odd thing that the left would get so incensed about them. I I what do you think it is?

SPEAKER_01 3:35

Look, I think it's it's the unions, to be honest. Um, I think that the unions have whipped up a lot of false information and narratives around what a charter school does. And part of the issue is that the

Charter Schools And Union Pushback

SPEAKER_01 3:50

teachers at charter schools um don't need to be unionized. Um, and it also means that schools can offer uh different courses and subject matters with not necessarily like registered teachers, for example. I know one of the charter schools in Christchurch actually uses student teachers straight out of the teachers' college in Christchurch and um pays them a really good wage. They get all of the um in-classroom experience and training, but under our current uh legislation, and it's to do with the agreements the um the unions have with the Ministry of Education, that would not that would not happen at a regular school. So um utilizing these trainees and actually education is amazing and it gives them a great opportunity, but the unions don't like this because they don't have control and oversight. So there's all kinds of wild um misinformation out there that they're spreading, that uh charter schools cost more than mainstream schools. Um they're taking money and resources off mainstream school, all of these things that are just completely false narratives. But it it makes uh definitely the teachers that are unionized, which is nearly all of our teachers in New Zealand, um get their heckles up a little bit around seeing another school being able to do things differently and that whole entire, I guess, narrative that they could be getting more money and things like that. But it's that's not true. Uh often um, yes, the setup of a new school is expensive, whether it's a charter or any school. Um, but they're often utilising, um, mid-eye, for example, and things that uh mainstream school won't use and it's actually cheaper. So yeah, there's a lot of false narrative, but you're right, it shouldn't be a political football. And it definitely the left should be on board um with charter schools because it opens a whole new range of opportunity for delivery of education that can be like, yeah, culturally appropriate. Um, it can be sensitive to all kinds of different needs of a community, and that is something that they should definitely be behind.

SPEAKER_02 6:02

It goes to show that some people talk a good game on diversity, but when it comes to delivering, they're not really that keen on diversity. That's what it feels like to me. Like this is one of those cases, I think. But 100%.

SPEAKER_01 6:14

They talk about diversity, empowering communities to deliver, but when you have to devolve that control down to a community, um, they don't want to do that. And we see that, we saw that with um Uranga Tamariki before Karen Chore became minister. They had started sort of devolving some things to community or eWi partnerships. Um, and under her um leadership, they've really moved quickly now into actually that devolution of services to get better outcomes. Um, because ultimately we know the state is not the right parent. Um, and we know communities have the answer to a lot of solutions. So yeah, it's just a it's a like you say, it's a really interesting um kind of the narrative that the left will play into around, you know, being inclusive, listening to communities, being there for them, but they also want to control them.

SPEAKER_02 7:06

So yeah. Yep, definitely. Okay,

Why Deepfake Abuse Sparked A Bill

SPEAKER_02 7:10

well, we'll get to the topic at um at hand. So um now your bill, now I've seen some images on your Facebook page of you holding up a blurred image, an AI image, uh of yourself. Is that correct?

SPEAKER_01 7:25

Yes, that's correct.

SPEAKER_02 7:27

So are you able to talk through that? Like is what brought you to this bill? What made you aware of the problem or made you feel that there was a problem here?

SPEAKER_01 7:39

Yeah, look, coming into um my role as a member of parliament, one of the, well two of the areas that I'm spokesperson for is education and also mental health. And I was hearing from schools, school principals particularly, um, when we'd go to talk to them about other things like attendance, they would end up talking about what had been happening with students and deepfakes. I was hearing from mental health organizations about young people and the harm that it was being caused by the type of deepfakes that were happening. And then as a parent myself, I was hearing from friends where this had happened in their school communities. And at first I thought, you know, it's just like Photoshop, putting a head onto someone else's body. Um, but then I was shared some of the imagery, and it was so incredibly realistic. The only person who knows that that is a fake image is the perpetrator and the and the victim of this kind of um, I call it like a bullying abuse, um, that kind of kind of thing. It's the it's intended to humiliate and harm somebody with the types of images that we're seeing. And um one of the situations that I'd heard about was a year nine girl um having this happen to her, shared amongst all her peers, and then she was so upset and distraught about it, she attempted suicide at school, which was a massive deal. Um and that's when I was like, isn't this a isn't it illegal to do this kind of thing? And and I went down that track with the the people involved in the school and the police, and we identified a grey area within our current legislation and our Crimes Act and our harmful digital communications act that doesn't explicitly say synthesizing, uh creating, artificially creating um these kind of images of a person without their consent is illegal. So I went about creating a members' bill to close that gap. And that led to um deep faking myself as well to find out how easy it was to do, how realistic it was. And that was a massive eye-opener in itself with the type of images that it could produce. And some of you know, some of them were clearly not like my body, a lot of them, you know, made me 20 years younger, which was nice. Um but there was definitely some um that were manipulated from pictures of me in my own home, and they were super realistic, and I could see how if those were shared around, um nobody would be none the wiser if they were real or not. And that was like really scary.

SPEAKER_02 10:45

No, no, that's it's pretty full on. I I've seen some adverts for AI AI girlfriends and uh on on when you go through reels, when I when I go through reels. And um some of them are I mean they're they're smuddy as hell. And and they and they're they are selling as a service pornographic videos where you can face swap.

SPEAKER_01 11:12

Yeah, totally.

SPEAKER_02 11:14

So that's happening, that's happening from overseas. I don't know how we'd regulate for that. That could get quite tricky, couldn't it?

SPEAKER_01 11:22

Yeah, we probably couldn't. Like it would be like whack-a-mole. I've had people ask me, shouldn't we be regulating um platforms or app stores to not offer these kind of uh apps and things that can do this? And there's a couple of things that I'll say to that. One is if it's not explicitly illegal in your country, there is no onus on an app store to not offer that, if you get what I mean. Once it is actually illegal to do this to somebody, then they do have an obligation to not offer specifically those kind of apps. Um, secondly, I didn't use any type of AI porn website to deepfake myself into this pornography. So any of the AI imagery technology has the ability to do this. And to try and find these websites, you'd need to use specific tag words, and you just wouldn't be able to get to the with the volume of these sites that are online, and you'd never be able to get to them all. So it'd be like whack-a-mole. You'd be hitting one site or one app, and then a new one would pop up. So that is why I've targeted behavior of using one of these apps or using a website to create the pornography of someone and then sharing that with the intent to harm or abuse them, as opposed to the sites or the technology itself.

SPEAKER_02 12:53

Yeah, yeah, that's interesting. Uh I noticed that. Like this isn't a a broad anti-AI bill, is it? You're specifically looking at non-consensual, explicit deep fakes that can be shared or used to threaten. And I mean, what else?

SPEAKER_01 13:12

There's a list that you'd go through there, or I think uh under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, there's basically a list of things for like revenge porn, which my bill aligns just with that.

SPEAKER_02 13:24

So

What The Law Targets And Defines

SPEAKER_02 13:25

I'll jump in there. So that's right. So so you're not this isn't like all this isn't really a new law necessarily, is it? It it's it's it's coming under that umbrella of the Harmful Communic Digital Communications Act.

SPEAKER_01 13:37

That that's correct. And and and also making it explicit in the Crimes Act, just so that we're clear. But yeah, definitely there is part of the Harmful Digital Communications Act, where if you say take a photo or make a homemade porn with a partner and then post-breakup uh they share that, that is now explicitly illegal. So it kind of falls within that category. Um, and there are definitely some definitions of what that harm looks like, and and it's already been well tested, honestly, within the courts at this point as well. So, yeah, to add to add an artificially um synthesized or generated is actually quite easy.

SPEAKER_02 14:27

So, what is sexually explicit? How is that defined? Yes, in this bill. So and it might seem a strange question, but I I think it because I'm gonna go somewhere with it.

SPEAKER_01 14:39

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 14:40

It's a family show, don't worry, but but uh but I I do I do want to go somewhere with it, but I I just need to know that to start with. So how yeah, how's that defined?

SPEAKER_01 14:49

In this bill, it's exceed it's basically like nudity. Um it's nudity or depicted to be nude or in intimate um positions, which is already the same definition for say sharing a photo of somebody without their consent if they were naked. So it's not trying to like reinvent the wheel. What I do think will come up at a select at the select committee, because this bill is right now in front of a select committee. Um, I think the definition will probably be tested and tried, and that that may change um given whatever the submissions are and the advices of the officials as to how to exactly define that. So because it's now with with the select committee, I don't have oversight or control of that. Um but I do expect that to be teased out exactly um how how it works that we don't unintended unintentionally get those that might be poking fun or taking the Mickey out of somebody in a comical kind of way. And yeah, that is that is the line, right?

SPEAKER_02 16:01

Well well, that's right, because we have this uh there's a satire parody bill that I'm gonna be submitting on I think on the first. Yeah, I'm gonna go down. Um, but uh like as a scenario, I was thinking, okay, say I don't want to pick on her, but say, say you you you know, a lot of people gave Tori Fano a hard time. What if people made a mocking image of her with the Emperor's New Clothes type riff, saying, oh, the Emperor here is naked and and there's a shot of her from the back or something like that. Like as Stans, I mean that's parody or satire, probably parody. Could that could that fall under it? So could we be could could there be could you be could there be a collision course with this parody bill coming?

SPEAKER_01 16:51

It definitely shouldn't fall under my bill. However, that's also why I've sent my bill to the same select committee as the parody and satire bill, so that they can be looked at by the officials together and to make sure we don't capture that, because I do want to make sure that we've got that freedom of freedom of expression, that freedom to be able to have a laugh still. Um, at those are really important things that we need to protect. Um and at the same time, somebody who got uh, I don't know, turned down a date with someone, has had them go and create a whole bunch of images, share them amongst people and say that they're real. Like that is the stuff we want to actually target, that kind of behaviour. So I was quite explicitly clear in the first reading of this bill, which will be that part of that intent that it shouldn't include that parody satire aspect. Um, so hopefully the intent would be that the courts would read that first reading description of the bill as well, in making any determinations around any potential cases that could be brought. But um there is, I there is could be a risk there. So I think that's really important that the committee does look at where that line is between satire and parody and where it's into actual harm.

SPEAKER_02 18:15

Yeah, well, see, that's interesting because if it is a nude image, I could I could see someone I'm not picking on her. I could see someone like Tori or anyone really. I mean, any politician could could could still say I feel harmed by it, if there's uh a degree of shame that goes with it of an image. I mean, if it's going to look as realistic as any of the other images that that you're you're talking about, they could still claim harm, couldn't they?

SPEAKER_01 18:41

Possibly, and it would depend on how realistic this is, because there's also

Satire Parody And The Risk Line

SPEAKER_01 18:45

a realistic aspect or a test that the courts would need to apply as to is this um is this image to a true likeness of an individual, and it's not um cartooned in any way, it's not used in any other kind of like comical kind of way or any way that it's particular you know, saying that it is kind of like a joke or something like that. The actual whole context of what it the image and what it's part of or presented as needs to be taken into account. But yes, there is a hundred percent a risk there, and I would expect the select committee to look at that risk and to give us some information as to what level of risk would be there for those getting caught up in something like that. Because we don't want that to happen. But at the same time, we don't want because AI is so good, creating actual nodes of you as a politician to be used in what someone thinks is comedy or satire. Um, I wouldn't be comfortable with that. But if it was a cartoon sort of AI thing of me, or it was yeah, certain aspects of your body naked, that could be different, right? So everyone's got a different level of tolerance for that. And the way that we define that is going to be really important.

SPEAKER_02 20:08

Yeah, it's gonna be quite interesting for free expression. It'd be because because I was thinking about, I don't know if you remember it in his first term, uh, an artist painted Trump naked, right? And wasn't very generous with some of his body parts. And it was clearly a painting. But it was also super humiliating. Like uh that sort of thing. I mean, if I I mean I'm I wouldn't care. I I'm not a good example, but there could be someone who could walk into an art gallery and see a clear painting of them, which is fake, but of them nude, and and be comp really harmed by that still, um, even though it's clearly not real. So yeah, I guess what is the difference here? Is the difference that is it the malicious use of it? It's is it the fact that it's being used for deceptive purposes?

SPEAKER_01 21:06

I think so. It's the it's the different type of harm that's been trite. Yeah, it's a different type of harm that I think we are seeing with the way in these which these deep fate images or nudes are being used. Is yes, definitely to humiliate. The people that it's happening to are young, vulnerable. They're not 40-year-old female like myself who might be offended, but at the same time, I'll get over that, you know, because I know it's not real. Um, it's used as a way to try and degrade and humiliate in a different type of way. There is a difference between something being art, I believe, and something being a clear violation of somebody's rights and ownership over their image. And I'll be honest with you, Dane, a lot of the images put people into like the most Horrible and degrading pornography. And so we're not just talking like a nude of some sort. We are genuinely talking like quite disgusting stuff.

SPEAKER_02 22:10

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 22:11

Yeah. And that's the stuff that the police would would really want to address.

SPEAKER_02 22:16

And things like that, like really full-on stuff.

SPEAKER_01 22:19

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 22:19

Because it can go anywhere.

SPEAKER_01 22:20

Totally.

SPEAKER_02 22:21

It can do anything. I mean, it it's yeah, it's it's really scary. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 22:25

It is really scary. And the subways is sort of really cool and impressive that AI can do this. Um, and then on the other hand, it's really scary that it can do this, and we need to make sure that people don't use that as a tool to abuse other people um with it.

SPEAKER_02 22:40

So so so what I'm hearing then is like if it was for private creation, which and this this still disturbs me. But but like if if you had porn with an ex-partner that you'd made and it was on your phone and you never shared it, it was there, you looked at it from time to time, whatever. Um, uh you're not breaking the law at that point. Would that be the same with a AI? Like, like would it be illegal to because it could be someone that you've got no connection with, but you could be making these fakes just for yourself, they never get shared, they're just for you, but is that still a crime under this not technically?

SPEAKER_01 23:22

So for the crime to happen, you have to uh essentially share that image either with the victim or with others in order to cause the harm. So I guess technically, if someone created those images and had them on their device and nobody was to ever find that, then that could be okay or could be argued that it's okay. But there is certain things around creating um yeah, like deep fake material, deep fake nudes or or pornography with individuals that if was found on your device, for example, with other stuff, I guess it could be used as an aggravating factor of other things, but it's not it's not in itself a standalone crime. But yeah, the the argument would be if someone found that on your phone, like a family member or an ex-partner, and they were then hurt by seeing those images, well then that then creates the crime itself. So, you know, it would yeah, it would definitely really depend on it. But the type of crime that we're definitely trying to target is the ones that create it and then share it in order to um cause that kind of humiliation um and send people into like mental health spirals, essentially.

SPEAKER_02 24:42

Yeah, because that that's a crazy gray area that we just never would have even considered possible two years ago.

SPEAKER_01 24:50

No.

SPEAKER_02 24:51

You know, like it's unsavory. I

Private Creation Versus Sharing Harm

SPEAKER_02 24:55

do not like the thought of someone doing that with a co-worker or someone that they you know what I mean? Uh it's but I guess if no one else is seeing it, but then is it deranging the person that's it's using it? That's what worries me too. It's like it's a it's a very I mean, and this stuff is just happening so quickly.

SPEAKER_01 25:14

Oh totally. And actually, in one of the um one of the victims, the perpetrator said that they made originally made the AI deepfakes just to see what they would look like naked, and then it just escalated from there, and then it turned into this thing where they uploaded them to a bunch of porn sites and shared them with everybody, and that turned into this other thing. But you you are right, like it is setting, I guess, um that kind of start to other behaviours. And if you think about child pornography or something like that, often people tend to watch, you know, say, like they watch someone younger or teens or whatever, and then it escalates into younger and younger as you don't get the same hit or response. I do actually think that deep fake in this area could be similar in the sense that, yeah, people um might start using the technology for just a bit of fun. Um, and or sometimes it could even be a bit of a joke, and then it's turning into, you know, these other behaviours that get darker and darker. So one of the reasons I wanted to make this explicitly a crime was to send a message to society as well that it's not acceptable and it's not okay. So it sets like a standard, if anything. Um and that in itself, particularly with young people, can be real powerful. Because we we do know with um the sharing of of nodes that was rife amongst young people, like five or six years ago. If they got shared a node on Snapchat, they'd screenshot it. Sometimes I'd share that around. And um, once that became illegal, the sharing of that just really dropped off a cliff. Um, it became a thing like, okay, if I'm now sent this, I better not send it to anyone else. And so that is in part, it's yeah, it's setting a standard around the type of behaviour, and hopefully people realise it is illegal to actually do that. Um, and if they went down a a further path or a deeper path, they may find themselves um in front of the courts at some point.

SPEAKER_02 27:35

See, the libertarian in me um would say that if someone really wanted to have uh a private relationship uh uh with some some AI that they'd created based on someone and no one knows about it, I I don't think it's good for them. But I don't I don't know if the state should get involved at that point or not. It's just a distasteful idea, but there's plenty of distasteful ideas out there, I guess. But it but education on it would be smart, I think. As long as it was really, you know, people knew the knew what it could do to you, or you know, and I guess the other thing is like you know, young men and women today, I I don't think they sort of uh interact the way that that I'm Generation X, I'm I'm older than you, but you know, we would walk up to a woman in a bar, we'd start a conversation and things like that. I I worry that all of that social stuff is has been on the wane anyway. And this will accelerate that too until there's just this huge gulf totally like between men and women, you know.

SPEAKER_01 28:44

If you're not going out and meeting people the same way that you used to, and your interactions are very much so online, if you're gaming online, um, you're spending a lot of time online, the chances of falling into some of those other behaviours are definitely more likely to occur. Um, and on your point about um if people are generating certain things for personal use, there is a hundred percent that aspect of yes, it's disgusting, it's possibly like we don't want to think about it. Um, if you were to do that though, and someone was to find it, then you'd have to be really mindful of the fact that that is in fact, then actually illegal. But if you didn't, then I mean, I suppose that's just completely uh up in the air. And and I get asked a lot, would we ban AI porn and all those kind of things? And that's absolutely no. Like we don't want the state involved in any of that. It's more about that um, particularly the individuals that are finding themselves like really um abused by this kind of content sharing.

Why Criminal Law Not Civil Claims

SPEAKER_02 29:50

Yeah, yeah. So um so criminal law, why criminal law, why not more of a civil remedy? Like, why not more uh because it's a diff it's defamatory, isn't it? Like you could look at it through that. I mean, defamation is really cost prohibitive, I guess. So maybe I I've answered my own question.

SPEAKER_01 30:09

You've answered your own question a hundred percent. So, yep, in the civil courts you could definitely take a defamation claim. Um, the issue is that not everybody has the access to a lawyer at very few of us. Yes, and and and that's it at the cost that associated with a lawyer, um, to be able to do something about this. And the only types um of cases where I've heard of this happening is usually with like social influence, like social media influencers, or actually, you know, movie stars. There was a whole bunch of fake porn with Taylor Swift, um, for example, one year, and they can take civil cases for sure in the countries that are in New Zealand, we could do that as well. But you definitely um see a barrier there, uh, which I think is unfair given the level of harms that I'm actually seeing from this type of crime. And like I alluded to at the start, um, young people committing suicide, that's on the more extreme end. But even on the other end, it's a young person being afraid to have their photo taken anymore, not wanting to engage with anybody on social media, um, asking for their images to be removed from just school databases because they're really afraid and paranoid about what could happen with that. I even one young girl told me she just doesn't even like checking a notification or a text if it's from an unknown, unknown, unknown number because she's worried that will be her image again. Um, and it's like that twisted mental thing that happens and that just follows into everyday life around that type of anxiety that it's caused and the situation. If anything, it's actually I've seen the types of harms that are being caused by this as being sometimes higher than real images being shared online because with the AI ability, you can make so many and spread it so much faster, and it's like near impossible to get rid of it all. So those victims won't know if that those images will pop up again and when they'll pop up again, and it's impossible to get rid of them all.

SPEAKER_02 32:34

So so you don't see this as a framework for a broader eventual AI regulation or anything. Um I think you've made that quite clear. No. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 32:46

No, I don't see that as a as a bigger thing. It does get often asked, though, when I'm talking about my bill. Um, I've discussed it at universities, for example, and the questions do arise around just deep faking in general. Um, so not in the pornography category, but say using someone's identity for fraudulent purposes, foreign interference, for example, um, misinformation, disinformation. So there is definitely a rise in that as well, and there's a concern in that. I don't believe we as a state should be going out and creating a framework that could potentially punish all of those that are using AI for good things and really hold us back. I think naturally what's going to happen is people are going to seek out what is real and and they will be looking for verification of things actually being real in the future. And I think there might be something that will pop up with markets around that verification over real or not real stuff, as opposed to governments having to do something there.

SPEAKER_02 33:59

Yeah, that's interesting, isn't it? Because like AI is everywhere. A lot of people are using it, obviously, but but I think the the habit we're all in is not really admitting to it too much. Like if someone says, Oh, that's an amazing budget you put together, dang,

AI Beyond Porn Plus Transparency

SPEAKER_02 34:15

how did you do that? And it's like, well, you know, I was up very late last night and AI did it. You know, I think I think a lot of people are doing that. So transparency and AI don't tend to go hand in hand as ideas at the moment, you know. Uh I think a lot of people are using it and they're not they're not transparent about where and uh the and how, you know. So every now and again I'll read something and go, oh, that's a fantastic, fantastic proposal you've done. Someone will go, oh, it's AI. I go, oh, okay, okay. Well, you got me, you know. But it's like, oh, big ups for actually admitting that because that's true, you know. So it it it's not, even though it's everywhere, and we probably should suspect many of us are using it, transparency and AI don't seem to be, you know, too to go together that often. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 35:00

That's true. And I guess it's kind of still somewhat frowned upon to be using or utilizing AI to empower productivity, which I think is like something that we do need to, as a country and society, do better at. Like AI is not a silver bullet, it's not always going to produce things that you definitely want. Um, it will make your life a hell of a lot easier in a lot of different areas, like summarising really technical, large documents and things like that, I think is great. And I think that transparency part when they're admitting people are using it is something that we kind of have to do, or we're we're just gonna see it as being this big bad thing continually and not talking about how we can really enhance um ourselves and our productivity with it because New Zealand and Australia, we're quite behind the rest of the world in adopting um AI in our everyday use, whether it's at home, whether it's at work, or yeah, however we go about it.

SPEAKER_02 36:02

Well I'm I'm a writer and I write film and different things, and I find AI really helpful for me as a kind of as a reader, but just to throw questions at and and have dialogue with, actually. Oh my goodness. Yeah, I know. It's not really doing a lot of writing for me. I mean, it doesn't do writing on my scripts for me. I want everyone to know that. Um, but but I will say I'm thinking about this tonally. Have I has that been done before? Have you seen a film where this is turned up or and then I'll end up having a dialogue with the AI and it will pretend you know, and sometimes I I just go, oh no, I don't agree with you. But it it's like having an assistant in the room, really.

SPEAKER_01 36:46

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_02 36:47

And you who you're just bouncing ideas off. Like I I quite like that, I quite like that concept because especially someone who's self-employed in the arts, I can't afford a personal assistant, you know, so the AI can take that, can take on that role. Um that's pretty good. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 37:05

The other really cool thing is you can actually get a personalized AI and you can train it to um to not like think like you, but to you can you can basically feed it, say, a bunch of like your scripts or your writings and things like that, so it can see your style as well, which means, and that's AI is just for you. Um, so it can definitely, when it's giving you responses and ideas, it will be in line with your other things. And I know I personally um have a AI that I do for like my PRs, for example, um, is and that has been fed all of the different PRs that I've done over time to get a tone right. And I always change whatever has been put out by it. But it's definitely getting better. And I think it in an environment where things are moving really quick, if you need to get something out, it's good to be able to have or utilize that skill. And I'm not um yeah, I'm not embarrassed by that at all. I think it's something we should all embrace and yeah, and just think it's I'd like you said it's great. You can ask it to do all kinds of different things, um, whether it's checking the tone of things, whether it's checking some facts or stats for you and give you a quick highlight, as long as you don't rely on that as the the source of truth.

SPEAKER_02 38:28

That that is really it. Yeah, that's right. You you have to fact check, and and as long as you're not receiving all of your knowledge through it. That's right. Like I think that's a concern that I had Michael Johnston of the New Zealand Initiative on about three or four weeks ago, and he was talking about that. And obviously, he's working in education. He's he's worried that people won't learn or retain anything because it's gonna be in their pocket. It's like I don't need to know about the War of the Roses in England, I can just look it up. You know what I mean? Like that that I mean, look, we're gonna have gaps in our knowledge where this could fill it and and and we can get knowledge quickly. Um but absorbing information, making our own coming to our own conclusions about historical events and things like that, and and and then being able to articulate it back is a skill. We don't want to lose that, or we don't want our young people to lose that just by saying, Well, I don't need to learn anything because I'm carrying the world around in my pocket and the AI is gonna think do all the thinking for me. Like that would be that I think is he's right. I mean, that's a concern. We we we don't want that happening.

SPEAKER_01 39:37

Oh, absolutely. We don't want critical thinking to go out the window just because we have a tool to be able to use. Um, but I liken it to to say having your calculator on your phone. Um, you still need to know the basic mass to be able to fire off those quick, you know, discounts at a store or something like that, right? Um, I don't check it out your phone and use your calculator.

SPEAKER_02 40:00

I was I I think I think I got 96% in my fifth form, uh, what it was called fifth form back then, yeah, in English, and like 25% in math. Like I just went, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 40:14

I I was kind of the same as you. I got like 53, but back then I got um I was part of the

Critical Thinking Creativity And Wrap

SPEAKER_01 40:20

bell curve that ended up getting downgraded to like a 49, so I failed. I don't know. So it wasn't great. That's horrible. I know you passed. Totally. I didn't know what that was about. Had to read I had to redo it, which was actually NCA. Um, like I was on that cast, so I had to do a year of NCA, and that was actually quite easy. So no surprises here that um some of our basics are gone downhill. But but yeah, look, I think there are ways that we need to be able to use AI and we can use it to our advantage, but you cannot replace those basic things that we need as humans to be able to go out in the world and yeah, think crit think critically, think creatively. Um, you're never gonna get AI, for example, to replace that creative aspect. Like I see some of the art that pumps out, and yeah, it's clever, but it's pretty crap. You know, it's not that AI slop, which you'll probably be aware of as an artist.

SPEAKER_02 41:22

Well, it can't write jokes.

SPEAKER_01 41:24

That's it.

SPEAKER_02 41:25

Yeah, like interestingly enough, it can write dramatic scenes, it can do things, it can be it's a bit cheesy at times. I notice that, but I've tested it a few times. It cannot write jokes. It's jokes, it's jokes stink.

SPEAKER_01 41:38

I was gonna say, are they like real dad jokes or worse?

SPEAKER_02 41:42

Well, uh, they're worse than a dad joke. Like it it's trying to be do it's trying to do dad jokes, which I mean a dad joke to me is like set up punchline. You know, dad jokes are just good jokes, really. I love them. Yeah, I love dad jokes for being a dad. But um, but the no, no, it it's like you're like, where's the joke? You know, you read the punchline and go, you thought that was funny. It's like, well, it's a computer, you know, don't get don't be too hard on it.

SPEAKER_01 42:08

Totally. And there's like there's nuances in like, you know, say Kiwi culture, like being a being a New Zealander and like, yeah, our type of black humor, or you know, all those kind of things. Like, there's no way that AI will ever be able to get that the same way um humans can and we can create that. So there's loads of things there, I think, that we need to protect and we need to make sure we can do well. And I think we will do that. It'll just be for some of those things that make life simpler and easier and faster and make us more productive that we'll use AI for.

SPEAKER_02 42:41

Oh, well, great. Well, look, uh I know you have to run, so it's probably it's uh a little short. Uh I would have liked to have gone a little bit, but you know, things happen. That's okay. Because it's all right. I mean, I can get you back. I'm sure I could get you back. Yeah, you can have me back.

SPEAKER_01 42:54

Definitely.

SPEAKER_02 42:55

Fantastic. We could do a panel or do anything like that. So it'd be lovely to speak to you again. It's been a really good um uh chat on this, and you've made a lot of this quite clear. I mean, it'll be interesting to see what some of our supporters say. Yep, where they think the line is. I think you know, there is a that satire thing is interesting. I I I can see some people at the submission stage wanting to go a little further here. So I'm gonna really keep an eye on that. Um uh yeah, I I think that's gonna be really interesting. But no, um, thanks for coming and and and speaking to us. And um, yeah, we'll um we'll have you back and uh fantastic. Uh we'll speak again soon.

SPEAKER_00 43:35

Thanks, Dane. Thank you for listening to Free2Speak. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and consider sharing the podcast with others. We release new episodes regularly, and subscribing is the easiest way to stay up to date. If you have any questions, feedback, or suggestions, you can contact us at podcast at fsu.nz. If you want to find out more about the New Zealand Free Speech Union, visit fsu.nz.

SPEAKER_02 44:09

Okay, so I'll stop at the and it'll upload now. Um we just need to leave it open.