It may be too late to save this election from the dangers of AI

Over the course of the last few election debates, issues such as tax reform, the cost of living and NHS waiting lists have quite rightly dominated the agenda. However, there is one issue that has not received the airtime it deserves – something that may prove just as critical in swaying a voter. That issue is disinformation.

The rise of technology-related issues should not be ignored. Advances in generative AI have led to a widespread increase in convincing deepfakes online, with politicians including Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer (and their campaigns) becoming primary targets. This technology is raw, but it is becoming increasingly sophisticated and is not being appropriately regulated.

While the Cabinet Office has published guidance outlining mitigations to manage the impact of disinformation campaigns, the risks it poses in the context of elections and our democracy deserve more recognition.

Attention should also be paid to the respective parties’ proposals (or lack thereof) to combat and manage it.

If the UK wants to be successful in its pledge to be a global leader in AI, and with the Online Safety Act failing to adequately address disinformation, our next government must seek urgent reform to our outdated electoral laws and wider legal framework.

Disinformation is a unique issue that requires a unique solution. A more holistic, forward-thinking approach to our legal framework is required – one which is capable of flexibility as AI inevitably develops.

In the context of political disinformation, we should be considering, for example, new criminal offences for individuals who create or deliberately spread election-related deepfakes. This is already the case for creating or sharing non-consensual pornographic deepfakes. Policy considerations around protecting freedom of expression must also be part of the conversation, as well as improving public media literacy and ensuring there is adequate access to reliable information.

Whilst it’s too late to implement these changes for this election, raising public awareness around the risks of disinformation is imperative. We must all keep in mind that AI-powered disinformation is out there and remain vigilant.

Seb Butcher

Blackheath

If you measure success in the debate by the loudness of voice, the number of interruptions, and number of times talking over the presenter, then Rishi Sunak was a clear winner.

However, if you score the winner on dignity, respect, and the veracity of their argument then Keir Starmer came out on top.

Why does the BBC not set clear rules for a civilised debate and apply them robustly? Much of the time neither candidate could be heard because of Sunak rudely interrupting and talking loudly over his competition. His behaviour renders these debates entirely ineffective for viewers.

Danny Corey

Redcar

What on earth was the point of the shouting match between the two party candidates last night? 

Suank seemed more anxious to tell us what Labour would do and neither candidate told us anything we didn’t already know. How refreshing to hear Ed Davey’s calm and measured interview on radio this morning.  For the first time, a politician who actually explained that legislation takes time to implement, such as five years to reach the target for the number of GPs needed. 

How many people who say candidates’ promises are never kept realise that?

Gillian Cook

Market Harborough

Rishi Sunak continues to trot out, with the monotony of a broken record, the discredited line that Labour would put up taxes by over £2,000.

In the face of this allegation, Keir Starmer took the opportunity in the debate to call his competitor a liar, yet Sunak denies it is a misrepresentation.

Obfuscation and cheating seem to have infected British politics, with the Tories being among the worst offenders.

Many people will still vote Tory out of a misguided sense of loyalty or a willingness to believe.  That’s unwise, as the Tories deserve a good hiding in the polls as a lesson to mend their ways.

Roger Hinds

Surrey

Andrew Grice refers to the very real possibility that Keir Starmer’s expected landslide could be achieved with a lower share of the vote than Jeremy Corbyn in 2017.

That is a real possibility.

You cannot lie your way into a position of leadership, alienate large swathes of your supporters with ruthless attacks on those who don’t agree with you, and appear indifferent to the plight of the Palestinian people without consequences.

Moreover, it is disingenuous not to mention the huge complexities around Brexit that are unique to this election.

Is Starmer really a justified winner?

Marilyn Tyzack

Lyneham Coombe

After five interminable weeks of vacuity and obfuscation, we stumble into the final week of campaigning no further on than we were when Sunak called this election.

If, as expected, Labour are elected they will be likely to do so as a result of an extremely low turnout by a disillusioned electorate. They will be struggling for a proper mandate other than the need for “Change”.

The caution that Starmer has shown until now cannot be allowed to characterise his premiership. The last 14 years have left the country in a total mess and in need of assured and radical action. The mending process – of everything from our health service, prisons and natural environment to our relationship with the EU and response to climate change – will take a long time, but must begin now.

Andrew Grice is right that in order to mandate real change, Starmer needs – now that the fatuous televised debates are over – to spell out exactly the size of the mess that the Tories have bequeathed us and how Labour will address the issues from day one.

To deliver such an impassioned speech in the next few days might win more votes but really, he will need to do so as soon as he is in office if he is to really win the hearts and minds of a tired and dejected electorate.

Graham Powell

Cirencester