\n<\/p>\n
For now, individuals should verify the source, look out for facial glitches, odd lighting or unnatural audio, and see whether credible news outlets or accounts confirm it, said Assoc Prof Saifuddin.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf a dramatic video appears only on random social accounts, that\u2019s a red flag,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
NTU\u2019s Prof Tandoc said: \u201cWe were all expecting that physical, traditional combat would be complemented by disinformation warfare \u2013 we\u2019ve seen that in previous conflicts as well.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was just a matter of time.\u201d<\/p>\n
While it is still possible to verify the videos or check if they were made with generative AI, the other problem is whether people want to check if they are real, or have the skills and time to do so, he added.<\/p>\n
With the volume of messages and images about the conflict online, people may not have the time to verify each video they see, said Prof Tandoc.<\/p>\n
In this situation, they just rely on their biases, he added. \u201cIf this video supports what I believe in, then I want it to be true, then it must be true.\u201d<\/p>\n
Generative AI has made spreading misinformation easier by reducing production costs, said Assistant Professor Ke Ping Fan from SMU\u2019s computing school.<\/p>\n
Anyone can generate text, images, videos or audio in multiple languages without much effort, he said, adding that deepfakes can be nearly indistinguishable from reality.<\/p>\n
\u201cEven if the quality of deepfakes is not good enough, they can be used to fuel rumours by prompting debates,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
People typically check for AI-generated videos by looking for technical inconsistencies such as unnatural lip-syncing or metadata like watermarks, said Asst Prof Ke, noting that these can be less obvious or removed in more deliberate and sophisticated videos.<\/p>\n
\u201cA better approach is to verify the source and chain of custody \u2013 asking where the video originated and whether reputable news organisations have verified it,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
Some countries have laws that empower governments to act against disinformation.<\/p>\n
Dr Carol Soon, the deputy head of NUS\u2019 communications and new media department, noted that Singapore and Australia have such laws in place.<\/p>\n
While mandating that the content be removed may mitigate the spread of false claims, the reality is that some people would have already seen the disinformation and are sharing it, said Dr Soon.<\/p>\n
Both upstream and downstream efforts are needed to combat disinformation. This could include community outreach to increase understanding and empathy between different communities, or the timely debunking and calling out of disinformation and its actors, she added.<\/p>\n
The difficulty is that misinformation can often be corrected early, but it can rarely be entirely erased, said Dean for NUS College Simon Chesterman, who was previously dean of the university\u2019s law faculty.<\/p>\n
Legal tools such as Singapore\u2019s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act can help by attaching corrections, and in more serious cases, restrict access, he added.<\/p>\n
But no legal regime will eliminate misinformation completely, said Prof Chesterman, who is also senior director of AI Governance for AI Singapore.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the end, the most durable defence is public resilience: citizens who are neither so gullible that they believe everything, nor so cynical that they don\u2019t believe anything,\u201d he added.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n