AI-Generated Deepfake of Soeharto Used in Golkar Campaign

The event involves AI systems generating deepfake videos that impersonate political figures with fabricated statements. This use of AI directly leads to harm by spreading misinformation that can influence public opinion and election outcomes, which constitutes harm to communities. The article explicitly states the videos are AI-generated and used in a political context, indicating realized harm rather than just potential. Hence, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework.

An AI system (deepfake video generation) is explicitly involved in the event. The use of AI is in the development and use of the video for political campaigning. However, the article does not report any direct or indirect harm caused by the AI system that meets the criteria for an AI Incident (such as injury, rights violations, or significant harm). Nor does it describe a plausible future harm scenario that would qualify as an AI Hazard. Instead, the article focuses on societal and political reactions to the AI-generated content, making it a case of Complementary Information about AI's role in political communication and public perception.

The event involves the use of AI systems to generate a deepfake video of a deceased political figure delivering a message that he never actually made, which is a clear case of AI-generated misinformation. This misinformation can influence voters and disrupt the democratic process, constituting harm to communities. The AI system's use is central to the creation and dissemination of this misleading content. Hence, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm from AI-generated political misinformation.

An AI system is explicitly involved as the video is generated using AI technology to create a realistic representation of Soeharto delivering a political endorsement. This use of AI to produce synthetic media for political campaigning can lead to harm such as misinformation, manipulation of public opinion, and potential violations of rights related to truthful information and fair political processes. Since the video is already viral and actively influencing public discourse, the harm to communities through misinformation and manipulation is occurring. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized harm linked to the AI-generated content's use in political influence.

An AI system was used to create a realistic video of a deceased political figure delivering a fabricated speech, which is a clear example of AI-generated synthetic media (deepfake). The video is used for political messaging, potentially misleading the public and spreading misinformation. This constitutes a violation of rights related to truthful information and can harm communities by undermining trust and manipulating electoral processes. Since the AI-generated content is already disseminated and causing harm (fear, misinformation), this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework.

An AI system is explicitly involved as the video was created using AI technology to generate a synthetic representation of a historical figure. However, the article does not indicate any direct or indirect harm resulting from this AI-generated content, such as misinformation causing societal harm, violation of rights, or other harms defined in the framework. The use is disclosed and intended as a political message. Therefore, this event does not meet the criteria for an AI Incident or AI Hazard. It is best classified as Complementary Information because it provides context on the use of AI in political communication without reporting harm or plausible harm.

The event explicitly mentions the use of AI to generate a video featuring a synthetic representation of a political figure delivering a campaign message. This use of AI-generated deepfake content in a political context can lead to harm by misleading voters, manipulating public opinion, and potentially undermining democratic processes, which constitutes harm to communities. Since the video is already publicly disseminated and viewed by a large audience, the harm is occurring, making this an AI Incident rather than a mere hazard or complementary information.

The article explicitly states that the video of Soeharto is a deepfake created using AI, which is being used in a political campaign. This involves the use of an AI system (deepfake technology) in a way that misleads the public by presenting fabricated content as real, which harms the community by distorting political information and potentially influencing voter perceptions unfairly. The harm is occurring as the video is viral and used in active campaigning. Hence, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident as the AI system's use has directly led to harm to communities through misinformation in an election context.

The article focuses on the creation and public reaction to an AI-generated deepfake video of a political figure. Although deepfakes can potentially cause harm, this specific instance is presented as a political encouragement without evidence of harm or risk of harm. Therefore, it does not meet the criteria for an AI Incident or AI Hazard. It is not a routine product announcement but rather an example of AI-generated content used in political communication, which fits best as Complementary Information providing context on AI's societal impact.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI to create a deepfake video of Soeharto, which qualifies as an AI system involvement. However, the content is used to encourage voting and there is no report of harm such as misinformation causing social unrest or rights violations. The public reaction is noted but not described as harmful. There is no indication that the AI use here has led or could plausibly lead to harm as per the definitions. Hence, it is not an AI Incident or AI Hazard. The article provides supporting information about AI's role in political messaging, fitting the definition of Complementary Information.

An AI system is explicitly involved in generating a synthetic video of Soeharto, a deceased former president, to promote a political party. While the video itself does not report any direct harm such as misinformation causing societal disruption or rights violations, the public reaction indicates concerns about potential misuse of AI-generated deepfakes in political contexts. However, the article does not describe any realized harm or incident resulting from this video, nor does it indicate a plausible future harm beyond general concerns. Therefore, this event is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides context on AI use in political communication and public discourse without reporting an AI Incident or AI Hazard.

An AI system is involved in creating a video of Soeharto, but the article does not report any harm or plausible harm caused by this AI use. The discussion centers on political strategy and public reaction, not on injury, rights violations, or other harms. The AI-generated video is used as a tool in political messaging, which is a societal response and context for AI's role in politics. Hence, it fits the definition of Complementary Information rather than an Incident or Hazard.

An AI system is explicitly involved in generating a video of a deceased political figure (President Soeharto) delivering a campaign message. This use of AI-generated content in political campaigning can be considered a violation of ethical norms and potentially a breach of rights related to the deceased's image and public trust. The event involves the use of AI in a way that directly influences political processes and public perception, which can be linked to harm to communities through misinformation or manipulation. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized harm of misleading or unethical political campaigning using AI-generated content.

An AI system was explicitly used to generate a video of a public figure making political endorsements, which is misleading and can influence voters based on false representation. This constitutes a violation of rights and harm to communities by spreading misinformation in an election context. Since the AI-generated video is actively used in campaigning and has caused public backlash, the harm is realized rather than merely potential. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct role of AI in causing harm through misinformation and manipulation in a political process.

An AI system is clearly involved as the video is AI-generated, replicating the voice and face of Soeharto. The use of AI here is in the development and use of synthetic media for political campaigning. While the event has caused public criticism and ethical concerns, there is no explicit mention of realized harm such as violations of law, human rights, or other significant harms as defined. The controversy and criticism represent societal reaction but do not constitute an AI Incident. Since the event involves actual use of AI-generated content with potential ethical implications but no direct harm reported, it does not qualify as an AI Hazard either. It is best classified as Complementary Information because it provides context on societal and governance responses to AI-generated synthetic media in political campaigns.

The event explicitly involves an AI system generating a realistic video impersonating a deceased political figure to influence voters, which is a direct use of AI technology leading to potential harm to democratic processes and communities. The use of AI-generated deepfake content in political campaigning can mislead the public and distort electoral outcomes, constituting harm to communities and a violation of rights. Since the AI system's use has directly led to this harm, the classification is AI Incident.

The event explicitly involves an AI system creating a deepfake video of a deceased political figure used in a campaign context. The video has been publicly disseminated and caused ethical outrage and potential harm to societal trust and political processes. The AI system's use directly led to harm in terms of misinformation and violation of ethical norms, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. Although there is no physical harm, the harm to communities and violation of rights (dignity, political manipulation) are clearly articulated. The event is not merely a potential risk or complementary information but a realized incident involving AI misuse.

The article focuses on the use of AI deepfake technology in a political campaign video and the government's ethical guidelines and regulatory plans. While the AI system (deepfake) is involved, no actual harm or violation has been reported or can be inferred as having occurred. The main content is about the societal and governance response to AI use in elections, making it Complementary Information rather than an Incident or Hazard.

An AI system is clearly involved as the video is AI-generated, creating a realistic political figure endorsing a candidate. The event stems from the use of AI in political campaigning, which could plausibly lead to harm such as voter manipulation, misinformation, and violation of election ethics. However, the article does not describe any realized harm or incident caused by the AI video; it mainly discusses the potential for misuse and the need for regulatory responses. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Hazard, highlighting plausible future harm from AI misuse in elections rather than an AI Incident or Complementary Information.

The event involves the use of an AI system (deepfake technology) to create a fabricated video of a political figure to influence voters. This use of AI directly leads to harm by spreading potentially misleading information in an election context, which can harm communities and democratic processes. The article explicitly states the AI involvement and the intent to influence voters, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. Although the harm is non-physical, it is significant and clearly articulated as manipulation and misinformation in a political campaign, which fits within the harm to communities category.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI (deepfake technology) to create a video that manipulates the image and voice of a deceased political figure to influence voters, which is a direct use of an AI system leading to harm in the form of misinformation and potential manipulation of electoral processes. The harm to communities and democratic rights is occurring as evidenced by public outcry and expert warnings. The event involves the use of AI in a way that has already caused harm, not just a potential risk, thus it is an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The video is explicitly created using AI technology to generate a realistic but fabricated message from a deceased political figure. This use of AI-generated deepfake content for political campaigning can cause harm by misleading the public and manipulating electoral choices, which constitutes harm to communities and potentially violates rights related to truthful information. Since the video is already viral and actively influencing public discourse, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm from AI-generated misinformation affecting the political process.

The video involves an AI system generating synthetic audio-visual content (deepfake) impersonating a political figure to influence public behavior. This use of AI in political manipulation can cause harm to communities by spreading misinformation and potentially affecting democratic processes. Since the video is already viral and actively influencing public discourse, the harm is occurring, making this an AI Incident under the category of harm to communities.