As a leading voice in policy and legislation, Donald Gainsborough, at the helm of Government Curated, brings unparalleled insight into the intersection of state politics and emerging technologies. Today, we dive into a groundbreaking case involving a North Carolina lawmaker’s battle against the misuse of AI in advertising. Our conversation explores the personal impact of having one’s image and voice manipulated, the ethical dilemmas surrounding AI-generated content, the adequacy of corporate and industry responses, and the broader implications for policy and public trust in an era of rapidly advancing technology.
How did you first become aware of cases like the one involving the manipulation of a public figure’s TED Talk for an ad campaign, and what was your initial reaction to such misuse of AI technology?
When I first heard about this kind of situation, it was through discussions in policy circles about the growing risks of deepfakes and AI manipulation. My initial reaction was a mix of concern and urgency. This isn’t just a personal violation; it’s a public trust issue. Seeing someone’s words and image twisted without consent raises serious questions about authenticity in media and how easily people can be misled. It hit me that we’re at a tipping point where technology can outpace our ability to regulate it if we don’t act swiftly.
Can you describe the emotional and professional toll that such a misuse of personal content might take on a public figure, based on what you’ve observed or studied?
Absolutely. From what I’ve seen, the emotional impact can be devastating. Imagine seeing yourself say things you never said, especially if it contradicts your values or distorts a deeply personal message. Professionally, it can erode credibility—people might question whether you actually endorsed something or doubt your integrity. There’s also the risk of public ridicule or misunderstanding, which can linger long after the truth comes out. It’s a profound violation of personal agency and public image, often leaving individuals feeling helpless against a faceless technological force.
What are your thoughts on the recognition that manipulated content received at major advertising festivals before the awards were withdrawn?
I find it alarming but not entirely surprising. Advertising festivals often prioritize creativity and impact over strict ethical scrutiny, especially in the early days of a new technology like AI. That this content won awards shows a gap in oversight and a rush to celebrate innovation without questioning its authenticity. While withdrawing the awards is a step in the right direction, it also reveals how unprepared the industry is to handle these issues. It’s a wake-up call that creativity can’t come at the expense of integrity.
How do you evaluate the responses from companies involved in such controversies, particularly their promises to form ethics committees or implement new guidelines?
I’m skeptical, to be honest. Forming an AI ethics committee or returning awards sounds good on paper, but it often feels like a public relations move rather than a commitment to real change. The key question is whether these steps address the root issues—lack of consent, transparency, and accountability. Without binding policies, enforcement mechanisms, or direct apologies to those harmed, these responses can seem superficial. True accountability would involve proactive measures to prevent misuse, not just reactive damage control.
From a policy perspective, what challenges do lawmakers face in addressing the harms caused by AI-generated content, and how can they strike a balance between innovation and regulation?
The challenges are immense. First, the technology evolves faster than legislation can keep up, so by the time a law is passed, it might already be outdated. Second, there’s a tension between protecting individuals and not stifling innovation—AI has incredible potential for good, after all. Lawmakers need to focus on principles like transparency, requiring clear labeling of AI-generated content, and consent, ensuring individuals have control over their likeness. Bipartisan collaboration is also critical, as this isn’t a partisan issue—it affects everyone. Striking that balance means engaging with tech experts, ethicists, and the public to craft flexible, forward-thinking policies.
What role do you think state-level initiatives, like leadership councils on AI, can play in mitigating the risks of this technology?
State-level initiatives are vital because they can act as testing grounds for broader policies. Councils dedicated to AI can bring together diverse stakeholders—lawmakers, technologists, and community leaders—to study real-world impacts and propose solutions tailored to local needs. They can also drive education, helping officials and the public understand AI’s risks and benefits. States often move faster than federal bodies, so their experiments with regulation, like labeling requirements or bans on deceptive content, can inform national standards. It’s a bottom-up approach that can build momentum for change.
What is your forecast for the future of AI regulation in the context of protecting personal rights and public trust?
I believe we’re heading toward a patchwork of regulations in the near term, with states taking the lead while federal frameworks lag behind. There’s growing awareness, and I expect more bipartisan support for laws that prioritize consent and transparency. However, enforcement will be the real hurdle—without global cooperation, bad actors can exploit loopholes across borders. My forecast is cautiously optimistic: we’ll see progress in protecting personal rights, but it will take high-profile cases and public pressure to maintain momentum. Public trust, though, will be harder to rebuild once it’s broken, so the stakes couldn’t be higher.
