Deepfakes are often thought of as a problem of technology and while that is partially accurate, they are also, maybe overlooked, a challenge of judgment.
Corrupted manufactured media exploits our assumption that, “seeing is believing.”
“Deepfakes… synthetic media, utilize a form of artificial intelligence/machine learning to create believable, realistic videos, pictures, audio and text of events which never happened,” reports the Department of Homeland Security.
It’s vital to prepare for manipulative media that can rapidly spread before facts are researched, studied and verified.
As false identities, voices and images become easier to create, leaders have the added duty and challenge of determining how decisions should be made when authenticity becomes uncertain.
Deepfakes are exploitation and manipulation of emotions, psychology and trust.
“The threat of Deepfakes... comes not from the technology... but from people’s natural inclination to believe what they see,” the Department of Homeland Security wrote.
That’s a significant one because the norm is to rush to judgment and not question, test and verify legitimacy. Consider how that can cause big problems.
Here’s what’s important to know from a response perspective: Knowing the value of leadership pursuing thorough investigation and verification.
That’s a competency or it isn’t. There isn’t an in-between it requires slowing down to avoid the temptation to premature judgment when the assumption is “credible” or “harmless” and moving on a decision before it’s been determined what is factual, in context, accurate and true or not.
Disinformation is not as rare as commonly assumed. It is often taking place without us perceiving and recognizing it. Perpetrators are of different skill levels and the best are getting better.
To be honest, they believe you are easy to fool or will not take much effort to dissect what you’re seeing, hearing or reading to determine what is “real” and what is false and therefore, deception.
Being trusted is a strategic asset that respects and protects relationships and it bakes in a stronger benefit of the doubt.
People who build and maintain credibility will weather doubts and upset better, to some degree, than those who have allowed themselves to develop trust deficits.
The difference can be vast.
Expect the unexpected so you can lessen the likelihood of being caught off guard. The reality is that lower production costs and higher quality of fabricated content, in essence, demands for a new responsibility of risk management, compliance and governance, rather than focusing solely or mostly on a surprising event.
There are additional implications for executives to consider in decision making, which include that what seems to be convincing might not be that at all and the value of slowing down to some reasonable degree on consequential decisions until information can be verified, is often protective.
Building a verification component into decision making and knowing and remembering that trust has a clear, measurable, operational value, will serve you well.
For other professionals responsible for trust, relationship quality and reputation, either internal or external to the organization, they will come to learn that crisis response planning should be acknowledging the very real, even if infrequent or rare, possibility and risks of manipulated audio, video and documents.
Also know that stakeholders will scrutinize how well leaders and organizations identify and verify information and media, not only how quickly they notice and respond.
For intelligence analysts, it is crucial to know that assessing authenticity is a core need and arguably, requirement.
Clear communication has to take place and confidence and intellectual humility both, expressed. Know that multiple independent sources is beneficial to risk management.
A key question to regularly ask is whether the content is genuine or not and who specifically benefits if it is believed? That may or may not be immediately obvious.
Don’t do this in a vacuum. Invite others in to question what you may not be seeing, hearing or considering. It can close gaps or be what you otherwise won’t learn.
Traditionally, a common curiosity for leaders has been “Could this happen” yet now, there are new, additional, necessary questions, such as “Could stakeholders believe this? How quickly could it spread? What decisions might be made before verification? And, how resilient is organizational trust if the information proves false?”
Sitting with them and acting on them are acts of intelligence and risk management.
Decision quality benefits from a higher level of knowledge and understanding to pursue stronger prevention, mitigation and sound responses to what seems believable yet may be an illusion and one with a nefarious motive.
Stakeholders need and expect diligence. They will hold your feet to the fire.
Be cautious to not get overly confident and comfortable and you’ll make better decisions what is and isn’t authentic and honest and how to proceed.
Subscribe for free (or paid, for Intelligence Briefs and the RI Column) to receive more interviews, analysis, insights and thought leadership about trust, conflict, stakeholder relationships, risk management, communications and reputation.
Connect with Michael Toebe on LinkedIn
For services, message me here or at EveryExpert
Proactive and responsive services for matters of trust, stakeholder relationships, risk, conflict, communications, crisis and reputation. Improve probabilities of outcomes.