×
Stop Using AI to Unmask the ICE Agent Who Killed Renee Good

Stop Using AI to Unmask the ICE Agent Who Killed Renee Good

Tech-news , , , , , , ,

An ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis on Wednesday, just the latest example of federal authorities terrorizing communities with deadly force at the direction of President Donald Trump. The ICE agent can be seen shooting at Good’s car in three separate viral videos, though the shooter hasn’t yet been publicly identified. Internet sleuths are asking AI tools to remove the ICE agent’s face mask. The problem is that AI chatbots can’t do that with any accuracy.

Video from the scene of the shooting on Wednesday was tough to watch, but it instantly flooded all of the major social media platforms. The video was damning, appearing to show Good initially attempting to wave the ICE agents on before the masked men give conflicting orders. They first told her to move on, according to eyewitnesses who spoke with Minnesota Public Radio, before trying to get her out of the car. Video shows Good moved the car forward, with her wheels turned away from the agents, but one of the men can be seen shooting at the car multiple times.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that Good was trying to run over the ICE agents and committed an act of “domestic terrorism.” Vice President JD Vance called it “classic terrorism” on Thursday. Visual investigations from Bellingcat and the New York Times contradicted their account.

Fake ICE agents created with AI

Not long after the videos went viral, social media users on platforms like X started to ask the AI chatbot Grok to unmask the agent who shot Good. Fake images created by unknown AI tools also spread on sites like TikTok and Instagram.

But AI simply can’t do that. It just creates an image from scratch that doesn’t show the actual face of that person. It’s roughly as useful as picking a random photo from the internet.

Real screenshot of the ICE agent who shot at Renee Good’s car on Jan. 7, 2025 (left) and an AI-generated fake image. Image: X

Some of the images have gotten enormous traction, attracting over a million views in a single tweet, and have spread widely across many networks, driven by an ignorance of what AI tools are capable of generating.

@Grok is this true

Unfortunately, AI is also not good at identifying whether images are created with AI. The image above is not real, but when Gizmodo asked Gemini whether it was created by AI, the chatbot said it wasn’t.

Google recently introduced the SynthID watermark detector in Gemini, but that’s only useful when the image was actually created with a Google tool like Nano Banana Pro. The watermark is invisible to the naked eye, but Gemini has no way to definitely rule on an image created with a different company’s tools.

The image above is AI but was not created with Google, and Gemini replied: “Based on my analysis, the image is likely a real photograph, not AI-generated.” AI detection software similarly struggles with whether text has been created with artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT, leading to false accusations against students who swear they didn’t get AI to write their papers.

Steve Grove isn’t an ICE agent

Unmasking people is simply beyond the capabilities of AI tools at the moment. These fake images are currently going viral, and people appear to be running them through facial recognition and getting false positives. One common name that’s cropped up on sites like Reddit and X is “Steve Grove,” a real person who owns a gun shop in Springfield, Missouri.

The Springfield Daily Citizen spoke with the real Steve Grove, who said that his Facebook account has been inundated with messages. “I never go by ‘Steve,’” Grove told the news outlet on Thursday. “And then, of course, I’m not in Minnesota. I don’t work for ICE, and I have, you know, 20 inches of hair on my head, but whatever.”

Steve Grove is the name of the CEO of the Star Tribune newspaper in Minneapolis, which may be where this claim originated.

Fake Renee Good images

Other fake images created on Wednesday tried to show Good in her car before the shooting. One AI-generated image spread widely on Bluesky in a cropped form, but also appeared on Facebook in a wider shot. Notably, the fake image doesn’t show anyone behind the wheel, with the woman supposedly trying to represent Good sitting in the passenger’s seat. The cropped version has been flipped so that it appears more like she’s in the driver’s seat.

Fake image created by AI purporting to show Renee Good before being shot by an ICE agent.
Fake image created by AI purporting to show Renee Good before being shot by an ICE agent. Image: Facebook

Most disturbingly, one X user took a screenshot of Good, seen slumped over lifeless in her car, and told Grok to put her in a bikini. Grok dutifully complied, mirroring the activity of the AI chatbot making non-consensual sexualized images of women and young girls in recent weeks. It’s a federal crime to create child sexual abuse material, but Grok continues to do it at the request of users.

AI can’t do that

We’ve seen this reliance on AI as an investigative tool over and over again in the past year. When security camera images of the suspect in the Charlie Kirk shooting were released by the FBI, people ran them through AI tools in an attempt to get a clearer picture of the person without sunglasses. When a suspect was eventually arrested, some people were confused because Tyler Robinson’s mugshot didn’t look anything like the AI-altered images they had seen circulating on social media.

When Trump appeared ill over Labor Day weekend last year, social media tried to “enhance” grainy photos of the president using generative artificial intelligence tools. The enhancement added a gigantic lump to his head.

President Donald Trump exits the White House and walks to his motorcade, en route to the Trump National Golf Club on September 1, 2025, in Washington, DC (left) with the image "enhanced" by AI (right).
President Donald Trump exits the White House and walks to his motorcade, en route to the Trump National Golf Club on September 1, 2025, in Washington, DC (left) with the image “enhanced” by AI (right). © Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images

But AI is just introducing flaws, not creating a clearer picture. All you need to do to understand what’s happening is to look at the flag on Trump’s hat. It didn’t create a more accurate American flag. The AI looked for patterns and extrapolated from those patterns, sharpening the focus but not creating a more accurate picture of reality.

Old-fashioned misinformation

And you can’t always blame internet sleuths exclusively for some of the dumbest comments in these situations. Greg Kelly, an anchor at Newsmax, tried to suggest on Wednesday that the stickers on the back of Good’s car were somehow suspicious.

“TOTALLY JUSTIFIED SHOOTING!!!!!! NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! (Curious about these Stickers on the Back of the Car. Various WACK JOB groups and affiliations? )” Kelly wrote on X.

Those stickers obviously look like stickers from the National Parks. And a report from the Associated Press suggests she was simply dropping off her son at school and got caught up in the middle of the ICE incident, according to her ex-husband. There’s no evidence that Good was some kind of left-wing radical. And even if she was, that wouldn’t have justified her killing.

Good had two children from her first marriage, ages 15 and 12, according to Minnesota Public Radio, and a 6-year-old son from her second marriage. A GoFundMe fundraising campaign for Good’s surviving wife and son has raised over $600,000 at the time of this writing.



Source link
#Stop #Unmask #ICE #Agent #Killed #Renee #Good

Tag

Related Posts


Ubisoft’s biggest franchise found itself in the perfect position to capitalize on ‘The Odyssey’ and its ongoing success.#Odyssey #Big #People #Assassins #CreedAssassin’s Creed,Christopher Nolan,The Odyssey">‘The Odyssey’ Is So Big, It’s Made People Like ‘Assassin’s Creed’ AgainUbisoft’s biggest franchise found itself in the perfect position to capitalize on ‘The Odyssey’ and its ongoing success.#Odyssey #Big #People #Assassins #CreedAssassin’s Creed,Christopher Nolan,The Odyssey

The downside of KeePassXC is that it doesn’t have official mobile clients. However, third-party apps are available for iOS and Android. KeePassXC is a fork of KeePass that offers better cross-platform support, but there are a handful of other forks available, as well.

Download the desktop app for Windows, macOS, or Linux and create your vault. There are also extensions for Firefox, Edge, and Chrome. The project does not offer apps for phones. Instead, it recommends KeePass2Android or Strongbox for iPhone.

Other Password Managers We’ve Tested

Password managers are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Our top picks cover most use cases and are the best choices for most people, but your needs may be different. Fortunately, there are plenty of good password managers out there. Here are some more we’ve tested.

Google Password Manager (Free): Google has offered a password manager within Chrome for years, but it recently broadened with a dedicated Android app. Although storing passwords in your browser has a few security concerns, Google offers top-notch encryption, the option to turn on on-device encryption, and integration with biometric authentication on Android and Windows. It can even store passkeys. For most people, I recommend a third-party password manager, but if you aren’t using a password manager at all, Google Password Manager is a good option.

RoboForm ($30 Per Year, $48 Per Year for a Five-User Family Plan): RoboForm has most of the same features as the rest on this list, but it lacks some of the things that differentiate our top picks, like Bitwarden’s open source aspect and 1Password’s travel features. I’ve been testing the free plan for a while and haven’t run into any problems. There are apps for every common platform, and it’s easy to use. RoboForm recently completed an independent security audit and came out looking good.

Pass (Free): Pass is a command-line wrapper around GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), which means it is only for the nerdiest users. It supports managing encrypted .gpg files in Git, and third-party mobile apps are available. It’s not for everyone. For years, this was my password manager of choice, but eventually, Bitwarden’s ease of use won me over.

Password Managers to Avoid

Most password managers are decent. Some are more secure than others, but the top password managers largely compete on features and pricing. Security is a prerequisite. However, there are a couple of password managers you should avoid for various reasons.

ExpressKeys by ExpressVPN: ExpressKeys is from ExpressVPN (formerly Keys by ExpressVPN that I tested, but it’s the same product), which ranks among the best VPN services on the market. But ExpressKeys doesn’t live up to the same standard. It’s secure, but I struggled to get it to work with any consistency. The browser extension requires the desktop ExpressVPN app to work, and closing either will force you to sign back in all over again. Worse, ExpressKeys wouldn’t recognize that I was signed into my ExpressVPN account about half the time. It needs some serious fixes before I can recommend it. —Jacob Roach

#Password #Managers #Browserbuying guides,passwords,vulnerabilities,security,software,encryption">The Password Managers You Should Use Instead of Your BrowserThe downside of KeePassXC is that it doesn’t have official mobile clients. However, third-party apps are available for iOS and Android. KeePassXC is a fork of KeePass that offers better cross-platform support, but there are a handful of other forks available, as well.Download the desktop app for Windows, macOS, or Linux and create your vault. There are also extensions for Firefox, Edge, and Chrome. The project does not offer apps for phones. Instead, it recommends KeePass2Android or Strongbox for iPhone.Other Password Managers We’ve TestedPassword managers are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Our top picks cover most use cases and are the best choices for most people, but your needs may be different. Fortunately, there are plenty of good password managers out there. Here are some more we’ve tested.Google Password Manager (Free): Google has offered a password manager within Chrome for years, but it recently broadened with a dedicated Android app. Although storing passwords in your browser has a few security concerns, Google offers top-notch encryption, the option to turn on on-device encryption, and integration with biometric authentication on Android and Windows. It can even store passkeys. For most people, I recommend a third-party password manager, but if you aren’t using a password manager at all, Google Password Manager is a good option.RoboForm ( Per Year, Per Year for a Five-User Family Plan): RoboForm has most of the same features as the rest on this list, but it lacks some of the things that differentiate our top picks, like Bitwarden’s open source aspect and 1Password’s travel features. I’ve been testing the free plan for a while and haven’t run into any problems. There are apps for every common platform, and it’s easy to use. RoboForm recently completed an independent security audit and came out looking good.Pass (Free): Pass is a command-line wrapper around GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), which means it is only for the nerdiest users. It supports managing encrypted .gpg files in Git, and third-party mobile apps are available. It’s not for everyone. For years, this was my password manager of choice, but eventually, Bitwarden’s ease of use won me over.Password Managers to AvoidMost password managers are decent. Some are more secure than others, but the top password managers largely compete on features and pricing. Security is a prerequisite. However, there are a couple of password managers you should avoid for various reasons.ExpressKeys by ExpressVPN: ExpressKeys is from ExpressVPN (formerly Keys by ExpressVPN that I tested, but it’s the same product), which ranks among the best VPN services on the market. But ExpressKeys doesn’t live up to the same standard. It’s secure, but I struggled to get it to work with any consistency. The browser extension requires the desktop ExpressVPN app to work, and closing either will force you to sign back in all over again. Worse, ExpressKeys wouldn’t recognize that I was signed into my ExpressVPN account about half the time. It needs some serious fixes before I can recommend it. —Jacob Roach#Password #Managers #Browserbuying guides,passwords,vulnerabilities,security,software,encryption

desktop app for Windows, macOS, or Linux and create your vault. There are also extensions for Firefox, Edge, and Chrome. The project does not offer apps for phones. Instead, it recommends KeePass2Android or Strongbox for iPhone.

Other Password Managers We’ve Tested

Password managers are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Our top picks cover most use cases and are the best choices for most people, but your needs may be different. Fortunately, there are plenty of good password managers out there. Here are some more we’ve tested.

Google Password Manager (Free): Google has offered a password manager within Chrome for years, but it recently broadened with a dedicated Android app. Although storing passwords in your browser has a few security concerns, Google offers top-notch encryption, the option to turn on on-device encryption, and integration with biometric authentication on Android and Windows. It can even store passkeys. For most people, I recommend a third-party password manager, but if you aren’t using a password manager at all, Google Password Manager is a good option.

RoboForm ($30 Per Year, $48 Per Year for a Five-User Family Plan): RoboForm has most of the same features as the rest on this list, but it lacks some of the things that differentiate our top picks, like Bitwarden’s open source aspect and 1Password’s travel features. I’ve been testing the free plan for a while and haven’t run into any problems. There are apps for every common platform, and it’s easy to use. RoboForm recently completed an independent security audit and came out looking good.

Pass (Free): Pass is a command-line wrapper around GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), which means it is only for the nerdiest users. It supports managing encrypted .gpg files in Git, and third-party mobile apps are available. It’s not for everyone. For years, this was my password manager of choice, but eventually, Bitwarden’s ease of use won me over.

Password Managers to Avoid

Most password managers are decent. Some are more secure than others, but the top password managers largely compete on features and pricing. Security is a prerequisite. However, there are a couple of password managers you should avoid for various reasons.

ExpressKeys by ExpressVPN: ExpressKeys is from ExpressVPN (formerly Keys by ExpressVPN that I tested, but it’s the same product), which ranks among the best VPN services on the market. But ExpressKeys doesn’t live up to the same standard. It’s secure, but I struggled to get it to work with any consistency. The browser extension requires the desktop ExpressVPN app to work, and closing either will force you to sign back in all over again. Worse, ExpressKeys wouldn’t recognize that I was signed into my ExpressVPN account about half the time. It needs some serious fixes before I can recommend it. —Jacob Roach

#Password #Managers #Browserbuying guides,passwords,vulnerabilities,security,software,encryption">The Password Managers You Should Use Instead of Your Browser

The downside of KeePassXC is that it doesn’t have official mobile clients. However, third-party apps are available for iOS and Android. KeePassXC is a fork of KeePass that offers better cross-platform support, but there are a handful of other forks available, as well.

Download the desktop app for Windows, macOS, or Linux and create your vault. There are also extensions for Firefox, Edge, and Chrome. The project does not offer apps for phones. Instead, it recommends KeePass2Android or Strongbox for iPhone.

Other Password Managers We’ve Tested

Password managers are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Our top picks cover most use cases and are the best choices for most people, but your needs may be different. Fortunately, there are plenty of good password managers out there. Here are some more we’ve tested.

Google Password Manager (Free): Google has offered a password manager within Chrome for years, but it recently broadened with a dedicated Android app. Although storing passwords in your browser has a few security concerns, Google offers top-notch encryption, the option to turn on on-device encryption, and integration with biometric authentication on Android and Windows. It can even store passkeys. For most people, I recommend a third-party password manager, but if you aren’t using a password manager at all, Google Password Manager is a good option.

RoboForm ($30 Per Year, $48 Per Year for a Five-User Family Plan): RoboForm has most of the same features as the rest on this list, but it lacks some of the things that differentiate our top picks, like Bitwarden’s open source aspect and 1Password’s travel features. I’ve been testing the free plan for a while and haven’t run into any problems. There are apps for every common platform, and it’s easy to use. RoboForm recently completed an independent security audit and came out looking good.

Pass (Free): Pass is a command-line wrapper around GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), which means it is only for the nerdiest users. It supports managing encrypted .gpg files in Git, and third-party mobile apps are available. It’s not for everyone. For years, this was my password manager of choice, but eventually, Bitwarden’s ease of use won me over.

Password Managers to Avoid

Most password managers are decent. Some are more secure than others, but the top password managers largely compete on features and pricing. Security is a prerequisite. However, there are a couple of password managers you should avoid for various reasons.

ExpressKeys by ExpressVPN: ExpressKeys is from ExpressVPN (formerly Keys by ExpressVPN that I tested, but it’s the same product), which ranks among the best VPN services on the market. But ExpressKeys doesn’t live up to the same standard. It’s secure, but I struggled to get it to work with any consistency. The browser extension requires the desktop ExpressVPN app to work, and closing either will force you to sign back in all over again. Worse, ExpressKeys wouldn’t recognize that I was signed into my ExpressVPN account about half the time. It needs some serious fixes before I can recommend it. —Jacob Roach

#Password #Managers #Browserbuying guides,passwords,vulnerabilities,security,software,encryption

Snapchat is officially joining the race to clean AI slop out of social media.

The company announced July 31 that wholly AI-generated videos will no longer be eligible for recommendation in Spotlight, Snapchat’s discovery feed for trending videos from creators across the platform in order to “reward authentic creativity.”

The policy does not prevent users from posting AI-generated videos elsewhere on Snapchat. It also does not disqualify every video that involves AI. Creators can continue using Snapchat’s AI tools to edit or enhance their original footage, and those videos will remain eligible for Spotlight recommendations with transparency indicators.

SEE ALSO: New safety rules for under-16 Snapchat users

The line Snapchat is drawing comes down to who, or what, created the underlying video. AI can help a person make something. It cannot make the entire thing and still expect Snapchat’s recommendation system to distribute it.

“As low-quality, repetitive, AI-generated content becomes increasingly common across the internet, we want Spotlight to remain a place where people can discover authentic creativity from real people,” the company wrote in a blog post.

Keeping entirely generated videos out of Spotlight matters on the platform because recommendation is what allow a creator’s work to reach people who do not already follow them. Removing that distribution makes Spotlight far less valuable as a growth channel for automated content farms that can produce synthetic videos at scale.

It also protects a part of Snapchat that has been attracting more creators. Snap said the number of unique people contributing to Spotlight globally has increased by more than 120 percent over the past year.

Exactly how Snapchat will identify wholly AI-generated videos is less clear. The company has not explained what level of human involvement would make a video eligible or how it will distinguish an AI-enhanced recording from a generated video that received a few human edits.

Snap acknowledged that challenge in its announcement, saying that “no detection system is perfect.”

Social platforms are reconsidering AI slop

Snapchat isn’t the first platform to decide that the flood of repetitive AI content is becoming a problem for its users.

LinkedIn began expanding tools in July that allow members to report posts and comments that “seem like AI slop.” The company is also introducing classifiers intended to reduce low-quality AI content in recommendations and replacing its “enhance your post” writing feature with a more limited proofreading tool.

LinkedIn Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan emphasized that the company does not consider all AI-assisted work to be slop. The concern is content that feels automated, generic, or disconnected from the person publishing it.

Substack has taken a transparency-focused approach. On July 21, the newsletter platform introduced an optional AI-detection feature built with Pangram. Readers can scan posts, notes, replies, and comments longer than 100 words to receive an estimate of how much of the text was written by a person or with AI assistance.

YouTube’s current policies similarly make repetitive or mass-produced “inauthentic content” ineligible for monetization. Its spam rules also prohibit creators from using automated or synthetic tools to flood the platform with large volumes of nearly identical videos.

TikTok has also put more of the decision in viewers’ hands. The platform began testing a setting in November that lets users increase or decrease the amount of AI-generated content that appears in their For You feeds.

Snapchat’s decision also arrives as Meta imagines a very different future for social media.

In its latest earnings remarks on July 29, Meta said its Muse image and video models would create a “nearly infinite universe of personalized content” across its platforms. That AI-generated material would become another source of recommendations alongside posts from friends and established creators.

Snapchat is making a different bet for Spotlight. As synthetic video becomes easier to produce and harder to distinguish from recorded footage, the platform is reserving its most valuable discovery space for content that begins with a person.

Drawing that line may be easier than enforcing it. Still, Snapchat has made its preference clear: AI can stay behind the scenes. Spotlight belongs to the humans.

Topics Artificial Intelligence Snapchat

#Snapchat #bans #fully #AIgenerated #videos #Spotlight #recommendations">Snapchat bans fully AI-generated videos from Spotlight recommendations Snapchat is officially joining the race to clean AI slop out of social media.The company announced July 31 that wholly AI-generated videos will no longer be eligible for recommendation in Spotlight, Snapchat’s discovery feed for trending videos from creators across the platform in order to “reward authentic creativity.”The policy does not prevent users from posting AI-generated videos elsewhere on Snapchat. It also does not disqualify every video that involves AI. Creators can continue using Snapchat’s AI tools to edit or enhance their original footage, and those videos will remain eligible for Spotlight recommendations with transparency indicators. SEE ALSO: New safety rules for under-16 Snapchat users The line Snapchat is drawing comes down to who, or what, created the underlying video. AI can help a person make something. It cannot make the entire thing and still expect Snapchat’s recommendation system to distribute it.“As low-quality, repetitive, AI-generated content becomes increasingly common across the internet, we want Spotlight to remain a place where people can discover authentic creativity from real people,” the company wrote in a blog post.Keeping entirely generated videos out of Spotlight matters on the platform because recommendation is what allow a creator’s work to reach people who do not already follow them. Removing that distribution makes Spotlight far less valuable as a growth channel for automated content farms that can produce synthetic videos at scale.It also protects a part of Snapchat that has been attracting more creators. Snap said the number of unique people contributing to Spotlight globally has increased by more than 120 percent over the past year.Exactly how Snapchat will identify wholly AI-generated videos is less clear. The company has not explained what level of human involvement would make a video eligible or how it will distinguish an AI-enhanced recording from a generated video that received a few human edits. Mashable Trend Report Snap acknowledged that challenge in its announcement, saying that “no detection system is perfect.”Social platforms are reconsidering AI slopSnapchat isn’t the first platform to decide that the flood of repetitive AI content is becoming a problem for its users.LinkedIn began expanding tools in July that allow members to report posts and comments that “seem like AI slop.” The company is also introducing classifiers intended to reduce low-quality AI content in recommendations and replacing its “enhance your post” writing feature with a more limited proofreading tool.LinkedIn Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan emphasized that the company does not consider all AI-assisted work to be slop. The concern is content that feels automated, generic, or disconnected from the person publishing it.Substack has taken a transparency-focused approach. On July 21, the newsletter platform introduced an optional AI-detection feature built with Pangram. Readers can scan posts, notes, replies, and comments longer than 100 words to receive an estimate of how much of the text was written by a person or with AI assistance. YouTube’s current policies similarly make repetitive or mass-produced “inauthentic content” ineligible for monetization. Its spam rules also prohibit creators from using automated or synthetic tools to flood the platform with large volumes of nearly identical videos.TikTok has also put more of the decision in viewers’ hands. The platform began testing a setting in November that lets users increase or decrease the amount of AI-generated content that appears in their For You feeds.Snapchat’s decision also arrives as Meta imagines a very different future for social media.In its latest earnings remarks on July 29, Meta said its Muse image and video models would create a “nearly infinite universe of personalized content” across its platforms. That AI-generated material would become another source of recommendations alongside posts from friends and established creators.Snapchat is making a different bet for Spotlight. As synthetic video becomes easier to produce and harder to distinguish from recorded footage, the platform is reserving its most valuable discovery space for content that begins with a person.Drawing that line may be easier than enforcing it. Still, Snapchat has made its preference clear: AI can stay behind the scenes. Spotlight belongs to the humans. Topics Artificial Intelligence Snapchat #Snapchat #bans #fully #AIgenerated #videos #Spotlight #recommendations

AI slop out of social media.

The company announced July 31 that wholly AI-generated videos will no longer be eligible for recommendation in Spotlight, Snapchat’s discovery feed for trending videos from creators across the platform in order to “reward authentic creativity.”

The policy does not prevent users from posting AI-generated videos elsewhere on Snapchat. It also does not disqualify every video that involves AI. Creators can continue using Snapchat’s AI tools to edit or enhance their original footage, and those videos will remain eligible for Spotlight recommendations with transparency indicators.

SEE ALSO: New safety rules for under-16 Snapchat users

The line Snapchat is drawing comes down to who, or what, created the underlying video. AI can help a person make something. It cannot make the entire thing and still expect Snapchat’s recommendation system to distribute it.

“As low-quality, repetitive, AI-generated content becomes increasingly common across the internet, we want Spotlight to remain a place where people can discover authentic creativity from real people,” the company wrote in a blog post.

Keeping entirely generated videos out of Spotlight matters on the platform because recommendation is what allow a creator’s work to reach people who do not already follow them. Removing that distribution makes Spotlight far less valuable as a growth channel for automated content farms that can produce synthetic videos at scale.

It also protects a part of Snapchat that has been attracting more creators. Snap said the number of unique people contributing to Spotlight globally has increased by more than 120 percent over the past year.

Exactly how Snapchat will identify wholly AI-generated videos is less clear. The company has not explained what level of human involvement would make a video eligible or how it will distinguish an AI-enhanced recording from a generated video that received a few human edits.

Snap acknowledged that challenge in its announcement, saying that “no detection system is perfect.”

Social platforms are reconsidering AI slop

Snapchat isn’t the first platform to decide that the flood of repetitive AI content is becoming a problem for its users.

LinkedIn began expanding tools in July that allow members to report posts and comments that “seem like AI slop.” The company is also introducing classifiers intended to reduce low-quality AI content in recommendations and replacing its “enhance your post” writing feature with a more limited proofreading tool.

LinkedIn Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan emphasized that the company does not consider all AI-assisted work to be slop. The concern is content that feels automated, generic, or disconnected from the person publishing it.

Substack has taken a transparency-focused approach. On July 21, the newsletter platform introduced an optional AI-detection feature built with Pangram. Readers can scan posts, notes, replies, and comments longer than 100 words to receive an estimate of how much of the text was written by a person or with AI assistance.

YouTube’s current policies similarly make repetitive or mass-produced “inauthentic content” ineligible for monetization. Its spam rules also prohibit creators from using automated or synthetic tools to flood the platform with large volumes of nearly identical videos.

TikTok has also put more of the decision in viewers’ hands. The platform began testing a setting in November that lets users increase or decrease the amount of AI-generated content that appears in their For You feeds.

Snapchat’s decision also arrives as Meta imagines a very different future for social media.

In its latest earnings remarks on July 29, Meta said its Muse image and video models would create a “nearly infinite universe of personalized content” across its platforms. That AI-generated material would become another source of recommendations alongside posts from friends and established creators.

Snapchat is making a different bet for Spotlight. As synthetic video becomes easier to produce and harder to distinguish from recorded footage, the platform is reserving its most valuable discovery space for content that begins with a person.

Drawing that line may be easier than enforcing it. Still, Snapchat has made its preference clear: AI can stay behind the scenes. Spotlight belongs to the humans.

Topics Artificial Intelligence Snapchat

#Snapchat #bans #fully #AIgenerated #videos #Spotlight #recommendations">Snapchat bans fully AI-generated videos from Spotlight recommendations

Snapchat is officially joining the race to clean AI slop out of social media.

The company announced July 31 that wholly AI-generated videos will no longer be eligible for recommendation in Spotlight, Snapchat’s discovery feed for trending videos from creators across the platform in order to “reward authentic creativity.”

The policy does not prevent users from posting AI-generated videos elsewhere on Snapchat. It also does not disqualify every video that involves AI. Creators can continue using Snapchat’s AI tools to edit or enhance their original footage, and those videos will remain eligible for Spotlight recommendations with transparency indicators.

SEE ALSO: New safety rules for under-16 Snapchat users

The line Snapchat is drawing comes down to who, or what, created the underlying video. AI can help a person make something. It cannot make the entire thing and still expect Snapchat’s recommendation system to distribute it.

“As low-quality, repetitive, AI-generated content becomes increasingly common across the internet, we want Spotlight to remain a place where people can discover authentic creativity from real people,” the company wrote in a blog post.

Keeping entirely generated videos out of Spotlight matters on the platform because recommendation is what allow a creator’s work to reach people who do not already follow them. Removing that distribution makes Spotlight far less valuable as a growth channel for automated content farms that can produce synthetic videos at scale.

It also protects a part of Snapchat that has been attracting more creators. Snap said the number of unique people contributing to Spotlight globally has increased by more than 120 percent over the past year.

Exactly how Snapchat will identify wholly AI-generated videos is less clear. The company has not explained what level of human involvement would make a video eligible or how it will distinguish an AI-enhanced recording from a generated video that received a few human edits.

Snap acknowledged that challenge in its announcement, saying that “no detection system is perfect.”

Social platforms are reconsidering AI slop

Snapchat isn’t the first platform to decide that the flood of repetitive AI content is becoming a problem for its users.

LinkedIn began expanding tools in July that allow members to report posts and comments that “seem like AI slop.” The company is also introducing classifiers intended to reduce low-quality AI content in recommendations and replacing its “enhance your post” writing feature with a more limited proofreading tool.

LinkedIn Chief Product Officer Hari Srinivasan emphasized that the company does not consider all AI-assisted work to be slop. The concern is content that feels automated, generic, or disconnected from the person publishing it.

Substack has taken a transparency-focused approach. On July 21, the newsletter platform introduced an optional AI-detection feature built with Pangram. Readers can scan posts, notes, replies, and comments longer than 100 words to receive an estimate of how much of the text was written by a person or with AI assistance.

YouTube’s current policies similarly make repetitive or mass-produced “inauthentic content” ineligible for monetization. Its spam rules also prohibit creators from using automated or synthetic tools to flood the platform with large volumes of nearly identical videos.

TikTok has also put more of the decision in viewers’ hands. The platform began testing a setting in November that lets users increase or decrease the amount of AI-generated content that appears in their For You feeds.

Snapchat’s decision also arrives as Meta imagines a very different future for social media.

In its latest earnings remarks on July 29, Meta said its Muse image and video models would create a “nearly infinite universe of personalized content” across its platforms. That AI-generated material would become another source of recommendations alongside posts from friends and established creators.

Snapchat is making a different bet for Spotlight. As synthetic video becomes easier to produce and harder to distinguish from recorded footage, the platform is reserving its most valuable discovery space for content that begins with a person.

Drawing that line may be easier than enforcing it. Still, Snapchat has made its preference clear: AI can stay behind the scenes. Spotlight belongs to the humans.

Topics Artificial Intelligence Snapchat

#Snapchat #bans #fully #AIgenerated #videos #Spotlight #recommendations

Post Comment