The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - What Does A.I. Say About Misinformation on Ukraine?

Episode Date: March 7, 2025

How did it come to pass that the president of the United States is repeating Kremlin talking points, suggesting that Ukraine started the war, when we all know it was Russian tanks that invaded three years ago? Erin Kelly, C.E.O. and co-founder of Advanced Symbolics Inc. shares some insights on information flows around the Russia-Ukraine war. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Renew your 2.0 TVO with more thought-provoking documentaries, insightful current affairs coverage, and fun programs and learning experiences for kids. Regular contributions from people like you help us make a difference in the lives of Ontarians of all ages. Visit tvo.me slash 2025 donate to renew your support or make a first-time donation and continue to discover your 2.0 TVO. How did it come to pass that the President of the United States is repeating Kremlin talking points, suggesting that Ukraine started the war when we all know it was Russian tanks that invaded three years ago? Normally, we talk Ontario politics with Aaron Kelly, the CEO and co-founder of Advanced Symbolics Inc. But this time, Aaron's got some insights to share about information flows around the Russia-Ukraine

war. So Aaron, thanks a lot for coming on to TVO again. And let me set this up by just starting with something that Donald Trump said at a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort. This was back on February the 18th. And he said, and you know, put this in his voice, because I can't quite say it the way he says it, I think I have the power to end this war, and I think it's going very well. But today I heard from Ukraine, oh well, we weren't invited.

Well, you've been there for three years. You should have ended it three years. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal. Now the notion here, Aaron, that Ukraine started the war, this came from Donald Trump. What does Pauli tell us about when this misinformation first started to make the rounds?

Well, here's what is really interesting. I thought when I first heard that from Donald Trump that he just misspoke, that it was a slip of the tongue. But then I had a customer who's of Ukrainian descent, and I was speaking to him the day after that happened. And after we did what we were doing for work, he said, can I ask you, can you look up this notion that Ukraine started the war?

Because it was really bothering him that perhaps this wasn't a slip of the tongue. And he said, if this was misinformation that had been put out by some state actor, would Polly be able to detect it? And I said, yeah. And I hadn't thought to do it either, because like everybody, I thought it was a slip of the tongue. I couldn't believe it when I ran the query and Polly showed not just that this had been around for almost a year prior to the president saying that, well, about six months prior to the president saying it, but that it had the signature of what we call a Hydra conspiracy graph showing that this was actually a planned misinformation campaign that the president

had somehow picked up. And it started where? It started on social media. So we monitor across several platforms, including the president's platform, True Social and X, which is owned by Elon Musk. And we saw it in the beginning of 2024. And I just monitored it for a year. It was had very small signature.

And we saw it starting with fringe groups, which is often how misinformation campaigns start. And then eventually they infect the general population. And that's when you have to be really concerned. Which countries in particular have kind of picked up on this notion that Ukraine started this war? Well we were monitoring North America, so Canada and the United States, and we really saw in the United States, which is interesting, the meme started, like I said, the beginning

of the year by June. It had infected almost 20% of the people in the general population that were discussing the Ukraine and Russian war. So it started off with a bolt-dot-right fringe group and eventually got more and more mainstream as time passed. By November is when it had hit almost 20 percent and that was just a couple of months before the president said what he said. The other piece of misinformation doing the rounds is that the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr

Zelensky, quote unquote, stole US aid money. That is quote unquote, out there. What can Polly tell us about how that got out there? Well, again, we saw this misinformation started with a fringe group, and in fact had a very, very hard signal, which means that it was really being pushed almost more than the Ukraine started the war meme. What's interesting about it though, is that this one started around the same time,

it actually peaked around July of last year. But while the fringe groups continued to push it, very suddenly in September, the general population rejected that misinformation campaign. And you can see it very clearly. It doesn't become a hydra the way Ukraine started the war, was a hydra where it kept growing. This one got cut off. And from what we can tell, it got cut off because it was just a bit too much and people started to fact check that one. Ukraine started the war, people didn't fact check it. Ukraine is pocketing the money, Zelensky is corrupt, was enough to warrant doing fact

checking and the fact checking does work when people do it. That's kind of encouraging, at least I think so. Should we be encouraged by that? Yes. At least I think so. Should we be encouraged by that? Yes, I think it tells us that there is a cure for this, if you will, that the challenge is that the fact checkers have to know what to look for. They have to see it. And like sometimes these things fly under the radar, like Ukraine started the war, seems to have flown under the radar.

We also don't have any credible fact checking in Canada. So now that we see ourselves in the crosshairs, a lot of these fact checking organizations are Americans. So they fact check American issues. But if we start to become the victims of misinformation, I don't know what our go to is. Let me circle back to something you said a little while ago, because you used a term which I thought I understood,

but I want to make sure I do. You said something about a Hydra graph. Can you just explain what that means? Sure, yes, I should explain that. So Hydra has many heads. And when you're looking at a Hydra misinformation, what you'll see is each time that the misinformation campaign, and you can see it clearly, it's a campaign because you get a blip and then it ends. And then the next time you get see it clearly, it's a campaign because

you get a blip and then it ends. And then the next time you get a blip, it's bigger. And then the next time it's bigger still. And so we call it a hydra because it has many heads and it engages different parts of the population each time that it hits. They're honing the message and seeing what works to get that general population engaged. Now if it's not a hydra you just see it die off but with a hydra it continues to just get bigger and bigger. Okay, Erin can Polly tell us anything about the particular demographics of the audience that would be inclined to believe this misinformation? Yeah, that is really interesting. We saw consistently with both of those misinformation pieces that we looked at, as particular to the Ukraine-Russian war, it was being discussed

and pushed by people of higher income levels. So starting at around household income of 120,000, going up to a million, the one with the Ukraine started the war was higher income. And interestingly enough, the one that said that Zelensky was corrupt was being defended by more of the middle-class population. Now that probably goes against the type of what most people think, which is the more education, the more income you have, the

less likely you are to believe misinformation. But you're telling us that that is not in fact the case? That does not seem to be the case. It's almost the case that if you're higher income, you feel you're smarter than everybody else, you've got some information that people don't have, and you need to be the one to bring it to the population. Now that's going to require a lot more research but it definitely the skew was definitely higher income there's no question about that. How about age does that factor into it at all? Older people so now again with the Zelinsky is corrupt the defenders got a little bit younger

The defenders got a little bit younger. But in both cases, it was really being driven by people who were over the age of 45 or even 50. Now, sadly, I got to ask this, but America is a 50-50 country right now. Red states and blue states. And is it more prevalent in one versus another? Unfortunately, not. We were seeing this go across the board. Is it more prevalent in one versus another? Unfortunately not.

We were seeing this go across the board. I mean, if you're running a misinformation campaign, you're going to try and get it into all of those states. And we saw that it penetrated across the country. Again, I want to take you back to November when Trump got elected. And that is when this notion of Russia didn't start the war, that the blame for the war starting was on Ukraine. That's when this really spiked. Is there any way to know whether or not Donald Trump

picked up that notion off one of these alt-right websites which started this whole thing in the first place, or how he came into contact with this notion to begin with? It's very, very difficult to say. What I can say is that he's repeating conspiracy theories. And so the messaging is getting through, whether it's direct, because he's speaking to the people

who are originating that message, or we know that he owns Truth Social, which is an alt.right site, which is where a lot of these things start. So he's reading his own site, whether he's aware of it or not, that I can't say. You know, Erin, it's funny, I read something, well, it's not funny, it's not funny.

Let me rephrase that. I read something the other day in which somebody who worked in the first Trump administration was in the midst of a conversation with the president, the then president, trying to explain that what he was about to say actually was inaccurate, was not true. And the president pushed back by saying, yeah, but it sounds good. And therefore he was going to go with that information, even though it was misinformation, and he knew it was misinformation. And I guess, I guess my question here is, what do we do about that?

Well, we're always running tests to see what we can do about that. How can we get people to fact check what the president says? Now, the good news is the general population is learning to do that. That's what I'm seeing. I don't think you're ever going to get the Alt.Right or the MAGA or people who are just drinking that Kool-Aid to do the fact checking, though even though that group says, because I ran it, which fact checking organizations do you believe?

They don't believe all of them. Some of them they think are being run by the liberal media, but they do believe some of the fact-checking sites. So making sure that you, if you're a person who is seeing this type of information on your feed, keep bringing in those fact-checking sites, make reference to them, provide the link in your posts so that the people around you can see,

hey, we have fact checking sites. Please look at it because we do find that that's the, that's what works best. I mean, we saw it again the other night when the president gave that joint address to Congress and he mentioned something like America has given $350 billion of aid to Ukraine with no strings attached and we don't know where most of it's gone. Now those were two incorrect statements. It is not $350 billion in aid, it's half that.

And they actually do know where it's all gone, it hasn't just disappeared. So that's the president in front of a national audience on all the networks, in front of a joint sitting of Congress, putting forward something that is just blatantly misinforming the public. And in a way, it's the same question. I wonder what we are all supposed to do about that when the narrative the president is putting forward sounds good. That's what he says, right? It sounds right.

It sounds good. So I'm going to go with it. What do we do about that? Well, it's not just that it sounds good what he says, right? It sounds right, it sounds good, so I'm going to go with it. What do we do about that? Well, it's not just that it sounds good when he says it. When you look at this misinformation, part of what was happening with, for example, the Zelensky that he's pocketing the money, there were video clips that went along with that misinformation.

And of course, Mr. Zelensky, English is not his first language, so he was asked. And who knows if this was part of the setup in the beginning, but he was asked what happened to all the money the US gave you. And he gives an answer that is, well, it wasn't that much money or it wasn't all cash or the cash was spent. If you're taking it out of context, because of course, not all of the aid was spent. If you're taking it out of context, because of course not all of the aid was cash, some of it was in equipment, some of it was in other supplies. So that's what he's saying in this clip. But if you're just looking at this isolated clip on social media and you're saying,

look, even he admits he doesn't know where the money is, it reinforces. And if you don't go and look and understand the context by doing a fact check, you hear what the president says, you go online, you see this clip by Zelensky and you say, because all of these things, honestly, they have things to back it up. It's partial information. So they give you some parts that are true. This is not deep fake. This really is a clip from Zelensky.

It's just that it's taken out of context and you're not given the whole story. So that's a big part of the problem here. If it was just deep fakes, I think they would die pretty fast. But the added challenge is that they take a little bit that's true and then they spin itself. Well, I gotta say, this is sort of a little bit encouraging that with a little effort on our parts,

we can do something about this. But on the other hand, deeply distressing that we have to and live in this kind of age. Erin, thanks a lot for joining us, much appreciated. Thanks, Steve.