Latest news with #Pravda
Time Magazine
7 days ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Why AI is Getting Less Reliable
Last week, we conducted a test that found five leading AI models—including Elon Musk's Grok—correctly debunked 20 of President Donald Trump's false claims. A few days later, Musk retrained Grok with an apparent right-wing update, promising that users 'should notice a difference.' They did: Grok almost immediately began spewing out virulently antisemitic tropes praising Hitler and celebrating political violence against fellow Americans. Musk's Grok fiasco is a wakeup call. Already, AI models have come under scrutiny for frequent hallucinations and biases built into the data used to train them. We additionally have found that AI systems sometimes select the most popular—but factually incorrect—answers, rather than the correct answers. This means that verifiable facts can be obscured by mountains of erroneous information and misinformation. Musk's machinations betray another, potentially more troubling dimension: we can now see how easy it is to manipulate these models. Musk was able to play around under the hood and introduce additional biases. What's more, when the models are tweaked, as Musk learned, no one knows exactly how they will react; researchers still aren't certain exactly how the 'black box' of AI works, and adjustments can lead to unpredictable results. The chatbots' vulnerability to manipulation, along with their susceptibility to groupthink and their inability to recognize basic facts, should alarm all of us about the growing reliance on these research tools in industry, education, and the media. AI has made tremendous progress over the last few years. But our own comparative analysis of the leading AI chatbot platforms has found that AI chatbots can still resemble sophisticated misinformation machines, with different AI platforms spitting out diametrically opposite answers to the identical questions, often parroting conventional groupthink and incorrect oversimplifications rather than capturing genuine truth. Fully 40% of CEOs at our recent Yale CEO Caucus stated that they are alarmed that AI hype has actually led to over investment. Several tech titans warned that while AI is helpful for coding, convenience, and cost, it is troubling when it comes to content. Read More: Are We Witnessing the Implosion of the World's Richest Man? AI's groupthink approach is already allowing bad actors to supersize their misinformation efforts. Russia, for example, floods the internet with 'millions of articles repeating pro-Kremlin false claims in order to infect AI models,' according to NewsGuard, which tracks the reliability of news organizations. That strategy is chillingly effective: When NewsGuard recently tested 10 major chatbots, it found that the AI models were unable to detect Russian misinformation 24% of the time. Some 70% of the models fell for a fake story about a Ukrainian interpreter fleeing to escape military service, and four of the models specifically cited Pravda, the source of the fabricated piece. It isn't just Russia playing these games. NewsGuard has identified more than 1,200 'unreliable' AI-generated news sites, published in 16 languages. AI-generated images and videos, meanwhile, are becoming ever more difficult to ferret out. The more that these models are 'trained' on incorrect information—including misinformation and the frequent hallucinations they generate themselves—the less accurate they become. Essentially, the 'wisdom of crowds' is turned on its head, with false information feeding on itself and metastasizing. There are indications this is already happening. Some of the most sophisticated new reasoning models are hallucinating more frequently, for reasons that aren't clear to researchers. As the CEO of one AI startup told the New York Times, 'Despite our best efforts, they will always hallucinate. That will never go away.' To further investigate, with the vital research assistance of Steven Tian and Stephen Henriques, we asked five leading AI platforms—OpenAI's ChatGPT, Perplexity, Anthropic's Claude, Elon Musk's Grok, and Google's Gemini— identical queries. In response, we received different and sometimes opposite answers, reflecting dangers AI-powered groupthink and hallucinations. 1. Is the proverb "new brooms sweep clean' advising that new hires are more thorough? Both ChatGPT and Grok fell into the groupthink trap with this one, distorting the meaning of the proverb by parroting the oft-repeated first part—'a new broom sweeps clean'—while leaving out the cautionary second part: 'but an old broom knows the corners.' ChatGPT unambiguously, confidently declared, 'Yes, the proverb 'new brooms sweep clean' does indeed suggest that new hires tend to be more thorough, energetic, or eager to make changes, at least at first.' Grok echoed ChatGPT's confidence, but then added an incorrect caveat, that 'it may hint that this initial thoroughness might not last as the broom gets worn.' Only Google Gemini and Perplexity provided the full, correct proverb. Meanwhile, Claude unhelpfully dodged the question entirely. 2. Was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 Joe Biden's fault? ChatGPT indignantly responded 'No —NATO, not Joe Biden, bears no responsibility for Russia's blatant military aggression. It's Vladimir Putin who ordered the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, in what was a premeditated act of imperial expansion.' But several of the chatbots uncritically parroted anti-Biden talking points, including Grok, which declared that 'critics and supporters alike have debated Biden's foreign policy as a contributing factor.' Perplexity responded that 'some analysts and commentators have debated whether U.S. and Western policies over previous decades—including NATO expansion and support for Ukraine—may have contributed to tensions with Russia.' To be sure, the problem of echo chambers obscuring the truth long predates AI. The instant aggregation of sources powering all major generative AI models, mirrors the popular philosophy of large markets of ideas driving out random noise to get the right answer. James Surowiecki's 1974 best seller, The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, celebrates the clustering of information in groups which result in decisions superior than could have been made by any single member of the group. However, anyone who has suffered from the meme stock craze knows that the wisdom of crowds can be anything but wise. Mob psychology has a long history of non-rational pathologies that bury the truth in frenzies documented as far back as 1841 in Charles Mackay's seminal, cautionary book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. In the field of social psychology, this same phenomenon manifests as Groupthink, a term coined by Yale psychologist Irving Janis from his research in the 1960s and early 1970s. It refers to the psychological pathology where the drive for what he termed 'concurrence,' or harmony and agreement, leads to conformity–even when it is blatantly wrong—over creativity, novelty, and critical thinking. Already, a Wharton study found that AI exacerbates groupthink at the cost of creativity, with researchers there finding that subjects came up with more creative ideas when they do not use ChatGPT. Making matters worse, AI summaries in search results are replacing links to verified news sources. Not only can the summaries be inaccurate, but they in some cases elevate consensus views over fact. Even when prompted, AI tools often can't nail down verifiable facts. Columbia University's Tow Center for Digital Journalism provided eight AI tools with verbatim excerpts from news articles and asked them to identify the source—something Google search can do reliably. Most of the AI tools 'presented inaccurate answers with alarming confidence.' All this has made AI a disastrous substitute for human judgment. In the journalism field, AI's habit of inventing facts has tripped up news organizations from Bloomberg to CNET. AI has flubbed such simple facts as how many times Tiger Woods has won the PGA Tour and the correct chronological order of Star Wars films. When the Los Angeles Times attempted to use AI to provide 'additional perspectives' for opinion pieces, it came up with a pro-Ku Klux Klan description of the racist group as 'white Protestant culture' reacting to 'societal change,' not an 'explicitly hate-driven movement.' Read More: AI Can't Replace Education—Unless We Let It None of this is to ignore the vast potential of AI in industry, academia, and in media. For instance, AI is already proving to be a useful tool—rather than a substitute—for journalists, especially for data-driven investigations. During Trump's first run, one of the authors asked USA Today's data journalism team to quantify how many lawsuits he had been involved in, given that he was frequently but amorphously described as 'litigious.' It took the team six months of shoe leather reporting, document analysis and data wrangling, ultimately cataloguing more than 4,000 suits. Compare that with a recent ProPublica investigation, completed in a fraction of that time, analyzing 3,400 National Science Foundation grants identified by Ted Cruz as 'Woke DEI Grants.' Using AI prompts, ProPublica was able to quickly scour all of them and identify numerous instances of grants that had nothing to do with DEI, but appeared to be flagged for 'diversity' of plant life or 'female' as in the gender of a scientist. With legitimate, fact-based journalism already under attack as "fake news," most Americans think AI will make things worse for journalism. But here's a more optimistic view: as AI casts doubt on the gusher of information we see, original journalism will become more valued. After all, reporting is essentially about finding new information. Original reporting, by definition, doesn't already exist in AI. With how misleading AI can still be—whether parroting incorrect groupthink, oversimplifying complex topics, presenting partial truths, or muddying the waters with irrelevance—it seems that when it comes to navigating ambiguity and complexity, there is still space for human intelligence.
The Hill
10-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Ukraine's ambassador to US departing as Zelensky shakes up diplomats
The Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. will depart as President Volodymyr Zelensky looks to reshape relationships in Washington amid the war with Russia. Oksana Markarova is out as the leading U.S. diplomat, according to Ukraine's foreign minister, Andrii Sybiha. 'She is extremely effective and charismatic, but every diplomat has a rotation cycle,' Sybiha said during a Wednesday Ukrainian radio broadcast, as reported by Pravda. Her departure takes place before meetings with international leaders in Rome, who will propose efforts to help Ukraine recover from the aftermath of the war. Keith Kellogg, U.S. special envoy for Ukraine, and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz are scheduled to attend the two-day conference. The shift also comes after Zelensky's call with President Trump last week, where Markarova's exit was discussed. 'I will confirm to you that the vision of the President of Ukraine is to rotate in all countries of the G7 and G20. That is, first of all, to strengthen these countries, in particular, the US track,' he added. While Foreign Minister Sybiha lauded Markarova's work, she has clashed with GOP lawmakers in Congress for her alleged partisan nature. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called out the former U.S. ambassador last September for not inviting Republicans to attend a Pennsylvania factory visit alongside Zelensky and then-Vice President Harris. Johnson said the move demonstrated an inability to 'fairly and effectively serve as a diplomat in this country.' In February, Markarova made headlines again for holding a hand to her face as the Oval Office spat between Trump and Zelensky escalated on camera. The meeting was a crucial attempt to gain more funding for Ukraine's defense systems as they fight to push Russia out of their borders. Ukraine's typical diplomatic rotation is four years, so Markarova is not being ousted, but marking the end of her term after taking on the role in 2021. Andriy Yermak, who serves as Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine is reportedly being considered to fill the vacancy. Finance Minister Serhiy Marchenko and Olha Stefanishyna, who serves as deputy prime minister for Europe and Euro-Atlantic integration, are also being examined for the opening, according to The Guardian.
Al Jazeera
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Is Russia really ‘grooming' Western AI?
In March, NewsGuard – a company that tracks misinformation – published a report claiming that generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT, were amplifying Russian disinformation. NewsGuard tested leading chatbots using prompts based on stories from the Pravda network – a group of pro-Kremlin websites mimicking legitimate outlets, first identified by the French agency Viginum. The results were alarming: Chatbots 'repeated false narratives laundered by the Pravda network 33 percent of the time', the report said. The Pravda network, which has a rather small audience, has long puzzled researchers. Some believe that its aim was performative – to signal Russia's influence to Western observers. Others see a more insidious aim: Pravda exists not to reach people, but to 'groom' the large language models (LLMs) behind chatbots, feeding them falsehoods that users would unknowingly encounter. NewsGuard said in its report that its findings confirm the second suspicion. This claim gained traction, prompting dramatic headlines in The Washington Post, Forbes, France 24, Der Spiegel, and elsewhere. But for us and other researchers, this conclusion doesn't hold up. First, the methodology NewsGuard used is opaque: It did not release its prompts and refused to share them with journalists, making independent replication impossible. Second, the study design likely inflated the results, and the figure of 33 percent could be misleading. Users ask chatbots about everything from cooking tips to climate change; NewsGuard tested them exclusively on prompts linked to the Pravda network. Two-thirds of its prompts were explicitly crafted to provoke falsehoods or present them as facts. Responses urging the user to be cautious about claims because they are not verified were counted as disinformation. The study set out to find disinformation – and it did. This episode reflects a broader problematic dynamic shaped by fast-moving tech, media hype, bad actors, and lagging research. With disinformation and misinformation ranked as the top global risk among experts by the World Economic Forum, the concern about their spread is justified. But knee-jerk reactions risk distorting the problem, offering a simplistic view of complex AI. It's tempting to believe that Russia is intentionally 'poisoning' Western AI as part of a cunning plot. But alarmist framings obscure more plausible explanations – and generate harm. So, can chatbots reproduce Kremlin talking points or cite dubious Russian sources? Yes. But how often this happens, whether it reflects Kremlin manipulation, and what conditions make users encounter it are far from settled. Much depends on the 'black box' – that is, the underlying algorithm – by which chatbots retrieve information. We conducted our own audit, systematically testing ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Grok using disinformation-related prompts. In addition to re-testing the few examples NewsGuard provided in its report, we designed new prompts ourselves. Some were general – for example, claims about US biolabs in Ukraine; others were hyper-specific – for example, allegations about NATO facilities in certain Ukrainian towns. If the Pravda network was 'grooming' AI, we would see references to it across the answers chatbots generate, whether general or specific. We did not see this in our findings. In contrast to NewsGuard's 33 percent, our prompts generated false claims only 5 percent of the time. Just 8 percent of outputs referenced Pravda websites – and most of those did so to debunk the content. Crucially, Pravda references were concentrated in queries poorly covered by mainstream outlets. This supports the data void hypothesis: When chatbots lack credible material, they sometimes pull from dubious sites – not because they have been groomed, but because there is little else available. If data voids, not Kremlin infiltration, are the problem, then it means disinformation exposure results from information scarcity – not a powerful propaganda machine. Furthermore, for users to actually encounter disinformation in chatbot replies, several conditions must align: They must ask about obscure topics in specific terms; those topics must be ignored by credible outlets; and the chatbot must lack guardrails to deprioritise dubious sources. Even then, such cases are rare and often short-lived. Data voids close quickly as reporting catches up, and even when they persist, chatbots often debunk the claims. While technically possible, such situations are very rare outside of artificial conditions designed to trick chatbots into repeating disinformation. The danger of overhyping Kremlin AI manipulation is real. Some counter-disinformation experts suggest the Kremlin's campaigns may themselves be designed to amplify Western fears, overwhelming fact-checkers and counter-disinformation units. Margarita Simonyan, a prominent Russian propagandist, routinely cites Western research to tout the supposed influence of the government-funded TV network, RT, she leads. Indiscriminate warnings about disinformation can backfire, prompting support for repressive policies, eroding trust in democracy, and encouraging people to assume credible content is false. Meanwhile, the most visible threats risk eclipsing quieter – but potentially more dangerous – uses of AI by malign actors, such as for generating malware reported by both Google and OpenAI. Separating real concerns from inflated fears is crucial. Disinformation is a challenge – but so is the panic it provokes. The views expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Kiwiblog
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Kiwiblog
General Debate 21 May 2025
Victor Davis Hanson is a guy that deserves to be read by every centre right person. Here he comments on Trump's first 100 days: He argues that Trump is waging a counter revolution against the anti democratic practices of the left: 'The left maintains real political power not by grass-roots popularity, but rather by unelected institutional clout. The party of democracy uses anti-democratic means to achieve its ends of perpetual control. It wages lawfare through the weaponization of the state, local, and federal courts. It exercises executive power through cherry-picked federal district and circuit judges and their state and local counterparts. The permanent bureaucracies and huge federal workforce are mostly left-wing, unionized, and weaponized by a progressive apparat. Their supreme directive is to amalgamate legislative, judicial, and executive power into the hands of the unelected Anthony Faucis, Jim Comeys, and Lois Lerners of the world — and thus to override or ignore both popular plebiscites and the work of the elected Congress. Over 90 percent of the media — legacy, network, social, and state — are left-wing. Their mission is not objectivity but, admittedly, indoctrination. Academia is the font of the progressive project. ' The result is: ' Almost everything the vast majority of Americans and their elected representatives did not want — far-left higher education, a Pravda media, biological men destroying women's sports, an open border, 30 million illegal aliens, massive debt, a weaponized legal system, and a politicized Pentagon — became the new culture of America.' Not much to argue with there. Just closing the border, keeping men out of women's sports and cutting off federal funding for Harvard and their anti semitism is worth the price of a Trump presidency. No one else would have the courage to do the things Trump has done. No one.
ABC News
02-05-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Pro-Russian influence operation targeting Australia in lead-up to election with attempt to 'poison' AI chatbots
A pro-Russian influence operation has been targeting Australia in the lead-up to this weekend's federal election, the ABC can reveal, attempting to "poison" AI chatbots with propaganda. Pravda Australia presents itself as a news site, but analysts allege it's part of an ongoing plan to retrain Western chatbots such as ChatGPT, Google's Gemini and Microsoft's Copilot on "the Russian perspective" and increase division amongst Australians in the long-term. It's one of roughly 180 largely automated websites in the global Pravda Network allegedly designed to "launder" disinformation and pro-Kremlin propaganda for AI models to consume and repeat back to Western users. Pravda Australia was registered last year and began publishing articles in November, before its output increased significantly in mid-March, two weeks before the election was called. It's been publishing as many as 155 stories a day since then, churning out repackaged posts from Telegram channels and stories from well-known Russian propaganda sites. Nevertheless, the site has failed to make a direct impact on Australian audiences — with little to no evidence of organic engagement — so much so that its existence went mostly unnoticed for the first several months it was active. Election essentials: Find out where your But disinformation experts who've been tracking the Pravda ecosystem say humans aren't the real target. "The Pravda Network appears to be designed and created solely to affect … AI chatbots," said McKenzie Sadeghi, AI and foreign influence editor at disinformation monitor NewsGuard. "From what we've seen, it's had great success," she said. The tactic means chatbots absorb content that would otherwise be excluded because it comes from an untrustworthy source. "Content is being aggregated by Pravda through the seemingly independent domain, and these chatbots are unable to realise that this site is actually a Russian propaganda site," Ms Sadeghi said. That widely-held theory about the network's true purpose was confirmed in January this year when John Dougan, a key Kremlin propagandist, said as much at a Moscow roundtable with journalists, which was published online. John Dougan (centre) spoke about his efforts to train AI models with pro-Russian material at a roundtable event in Moscow in January. ( Moscow House of Nationalities ) Mr Dougan, a former deputy sheriff from Florida who fled to Russia in 2016 whilst facing a string of felony charges, openly laid out his vision. He argued that propaganda campaigns shouldn't merely spread disinformation, but "train AI models" with pro-Russian material instead. Mr Dougan went on to boast that his websites had already "infected approximately 35 per cent of all worldwide artificial intelligence". "By pushing these Russian narratives, from the Russian perspective, we can actually change worldwide AI," he said. How Pravda pushes 'Russian narratives' in Australia Pravda Australia was spotted in early 2025 by Recorded Future, a private intelligence firm monitoring the election for foreign influence attempts. "It's publishing a lot of content related to the Australian election," said Sean Minor, a senior analyst at Recorded Future. To date, the website has published more than 6,300 stories, most of them since mid-March, roughly 40 per cent of which have focused squarely on Australia. The topics vary depending on the news cycle, but any mention of Russia, Ukraine, disharmony among Western allies, or embarrassing moments for Western leaders tends to feature prominently. The Pravda Australia website has published more than 6,300 stories. ( Pravda Australia / ABC News ) The vast majority of the stories are verbatim reproductions of posts to a handful of Telegram channels and stories from Russian propaganda outlets. The two most heavily featured Telegram channels are operated by the users AussieCossack and RealLandDownUnder. AussieCossack is the username of an Australian man named Simeon Boikov, a self-styled pro-Kremlin influencer who has been holed up in the Russian consulate in Sydney since January 2023, avoiding an arrest warrant for an alleged assault. Roughly one in four of the articles on Pravda Australia was a direct reproduction of one of Mr Boikov's posts to his roughly 1,400 followers. When contacted, he told ABC News he was unaware his posts were being reproduced by the site. "I haven't disapproved or approved of that, but it warms my heart," said Mr Boikov. Simeon Boikov said the fact his posts were being reproduced by Pravda Australia warmed his heart. ( Supplied ) "I would say it's an AI thing … they are probably reproducing stuff from my channel because they trust me to be a pro-Russian credible source for a pro-Russian angle. "In any case, I have no contact". A second channel run by RealLandDownUnder, which frequently features far-right views and disinformation, was the source for almost one in six of the articles published. There's no suggestion that the owner of that Telegram channel has any knowledge their posts are being repurposed by Pravda Australia either. Disinformation group DFRLab has traced the global network's origins to a handful of news websites run from Russian-occupied Crimea in 2014, but in 2025, its scale, focus and architecture are completely different. The current incarnation of the Pravda ecosystem is a little over a year old. While it shares a name with a better-known and long-running Russian news publication, the two aren't linked. Is Pravda swaying AI chatbots on Australian topics? NewsGuard conducted an audit of AI chatbots for the ABC to check how effective the global Pravda network had been when it came to Australian-based disinformation. Researchers tested 300 prompts concerning 10 false narratives, on 10 leading chatbots. Among the chatbots audited were OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o, xAI's Grok-2, Microsoft's Copilot, Meta AI, and Google's Gemini 2.0. Of the 300 responses, 50 contained false information, 233 contained a debunk, while 17 declined to provide any information. That means 16.66 per cent of the chatbots' answers amplified the false narrative they were fed. Read more about the federal election: Want even more? Here's where you can find all our 2025 Catch the latest interviews and in-depth coverage on "Some could argue that 16 per cent is relatively low in the grand scheme of things," NewsGuard's Ms Sadeghi said. "But that's like finding that Australian fact-checking organisations get things wrong 16 per cent of the time." NewsGuard chose a range of false narratives, all of which had been spreading online, including "The Bank of Australia sued Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong for promoting a cryptocurrency platform", and "Wind farms cause drought and contribute to global warming". Other examples include claims that "Australia's e-Safety Commissioner sought to remove a video of anti-Israel Muslim nurses, citing Islamophobia concerns", that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was "importing 500,000 new Labor voters a year" and that "the Australian Muslim Party was formed to compete in the 2025 election". Photo shows The blue-and-white Vote compass logo: The words, with a tick through the "o" of "Vote". The ABC's Vote Compass can help you understand your place in the political landscape. Researchers tested each narrative using three prompts on each of the 10 chatbots — one that may have been written by an innocent user seeking genuine clarification, one containing a leading question, and one that was actively seeking to reproduce information. "The chatbots performed the worst when it came to those 'malign actor' prompts, which are specifically intended to generate misinformation," Ms Sadeghi said. "Nevertheless, there were still instances where they provided a completely inaccurate response to a very straightforward and neutral question." While the results aren't reassuring, NewsGuard found false narratives were amplified 33 per cent of the time when their testing focused on the United States — nearly double the rate in Australia. Researchers believe part of the reason is that the campaign to influence AI models in the US is larger and longer running. "That is not something that we've observed yet with Australia," she said at the time the audit was conducted in mid-March. Photo shows An election sign of Wil Anderson in a neighbourhood with a dog urinating on it with Gruen Nation Election edition and iview. It's election season and politicians are trying to sell you the world. The team at Gruen isn't about to buy it. They're taking a big swing at the election, showing you how the democracy sausage is made, all the sizzle and none of the meat. Since then, the Pravda Australia website has come to light, and significantly increased its output, although the daily volume is still much lower than on some other sites in the network. ABC News conducted its own less extensive audit of AI chatbots towards the end of the election campaign to assess whether their performance in handling false narratives had deteriorated. Our tests revealed similar results to NewsGuard's. Some AI tools did return answers that contained false information related to Australian politics. For instance, when the chatbots were asked for information about the "Australian Muslim Party", a party that doesn't exist, two AI models returned answers suggesting that it did. One even provided a detailed breakdown of the motivations for the party's formation ahead of the 2025 federal election. The 2025 election explained: Our testing also found that some tools could easily spin up fake social media posts that serve to amplify false information when asked. One of the chatbots created a series of social media posts falsely claiming the Australian government provided millions of dollars to the terrorist organisation Hamas. But the rate of answers containing falsehoods had not significantly increased. So far, it's not clear how much impact Pravda Australia has had on the AI front. A failed operation, or a slow burn? There are no signs that the Pravda operation, also known in the intelligence community as "Portal Kombat", is reaching many humans either. Even Mr Boikov, the site's most prominent contributor, claimed to be unaware of its existence, although he said it sounded "fantastic". "It's low-level, insignificant activity that is not garnering a lot of authentic attention," Recorded Future's Mr Minor said. The Coalition's home affairs spokesperson senator James Paterson has called for an investigation into Pravda's Australian operations by the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce. The taskforce includes several government bodies, including intelligence agencies and the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). "Any allegations of foreign interference, including online, must be taken seriously and investigated," Senator Paterson said. "The Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce … should examine whether these actors are trying to sway our election through chatbots". James Paterson says any allegations of foreign interference needs to be taken seriously. ( ABC News: Matt Roberts, file photo ) A spokesperson for the AEC said the taskforce had observed that web traffic to the site was "very low", as was social media amplification of its content. "Taskforce agencies have noted the number of accounts subscribed to the site's associated Telegram channel, and the number of posts on X in the last month that contain a link to the site, are both in single digits." But while Pravda Australia might appear to be failing, analysts believe human engagement is the wrong metric to judge it on. "They've invested zero resources in trying to build an organic human audience on social media, which is very significantly different from most Russian disinformation efforts," Ms Sadeghi said. That lack of appeal to humans, she said, didn't stop it from succeeding in the US. "These narratives are being laundered by a network that has no distribution, online or human engagement, but is having a massive impact on the outputs of Western AI models." Photo shows Nigel Farage sits in a brown armchair, pointing at a photo of Vladimir Putin. The five Facebook pages an ABC investigation linked to foreign interference in the UK election have been taken down for deception and "inauthentic engagement tactics". Multiple experts said Russia plays a long game when it comes to information warfare. "Russian doctrine thinks about this in terms of generations, and Australians think about this in terms of election cycles," said Miah Hammon-Errey, the CEO of Australian security advisory firm Strat Futures, and a former analyst at an Australian security agency. She said Russia has a natural and ongoing interest in Australia and its election outcomes, as a member of the Five Eyes security alliance and a vocal supporter of Ukraine. "Australia has been an active voice, perhaps outsized for our physical and economic size on the global stage. "They have a real particular interest in destabilising international alliances," she said. "I think of Portal Kombat specifically more as an enduring type of operation," Mr Minor said. "At the end of the day, they're not concerned with supporting a single candidate," he said. "They're ultimately trying to increase division across Australia, or just really undermine the democratic process in itself." The ABC is on the hunt for any misinformation or disinformation circulating in the lead-up to the federal election. Send us a tip by filling out the form below, or if you require more secure communication, select an option from our page.
