Have you ever heard the story of a liar who lived in a village? Simply put, a man lied every day that a tiger had entered the village, and every day the villagers went hunting for the tiger with pitchforks and torches. Ta. But I get fooled every day. One day, when the tiger actually entered the village, the man tried to warn the villagers again, but this time, as usual, no one believed him as he was lying. The man became prey to a tiger. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you.”
HDFC Bank recently released a campaign featuring Nora Fatehi. Well, not completely. It was a deepfake video of an actress advertising a brand's services. The brand promoted the campaign as if it were a genuine deepfake issue. Almost everyone was fooled, so why weren't they fooled? Deepfakes are a true plague on social media. Especially when AI and its growing capabilities are becoming more readily available to the average person. Everyone from social media users to CEOs to ministers are voicing concerns, spreading alarm over the alarming rise in deepfake content and advocating for the responsible use of AI.
“As if the dangers of deepfakes weren't enough, fake deepfakes now exist solely to collect viral news,” said Kartik Srinivasan, a communications strategy consultant.
That video was fake. To be more precise, it's a fake among fakes. This has blurred the line between actual AI threats and propaganda. Was it a clever marketing strategy? It's hard to say really. It got attention, went viral, and everyone was talking about it. But at what cost? The brand aims to have a positive impact on society. However, the race to ride what appears to be a trend can easily backfire and cause negative ripple effects.
“This was a really complex campaign idea, with dire consequences that you can easily imagine,” Srinivasan added.
Yes, people were fooled by this elaborate prank. But if there was a real deepfake of Nora Fatehi tomorrow, would people believe it? Will they help draw attention to it? Once bitten, twice embarrassed. Perhaps this did more harm than good.
First publication date
