Sorry, u/Turbulent-Leg-2650 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
I'm considering the argument used by many Trump supporters who think the autopen is a technology that should not be used in the US government. I agree that this has been used for a long time. I'm just questioning why some would consider the autopen so dangerous for American democracy when Trump has been modified by AI time and time again. It's really a scary concept if you consider how it could be used against the American people.
I believe that no one who thinks critically actually believes the autopen is in any way nefarious. I posit that the entire premise of your argument plays directly into their propaganda, which is to questions the most basic tools of government.
I'm considering the argument used by many Trump supporters who think the autopen is a technology that should not be used in the US government.
This is not a serious argument, it's just an attempt to justify Trump creating an "issue" out of thin air in order to cancel, overturn, or ignore any Biden executive action that he doesn't like. I guarantee that nobody making this argument had ever heard the term "autopen" before Trump started complaining about it.
I believe (and I'm not a Trump supporter by any means) the issue isn't necessarily the autopen itself, but the unauthorized use of it, such as cabinet members and advisors wielding the power of the Presidency without explicit permission from the POTUS to do so.
I mean there's no evidence of that they are suggesting that due to diminished capacity it must have happened but they have no evidence it actually did happen
Trump supporters who think the autopen is a technology that should not be used in the US government.
They don't think that. When a bully calls you a stupid gay nerd, he doesn't actually think that's true. He's just bullying you. Trump supporters don't think autopen is bad,the same way they don't think a lot of the things they say. They're just trying out an attack, trying to see what will stick.
Sorry, u/imsofreakingpissed – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
Can you link to any trustworthy news source that shows evidence of the speech being AI? Because I haven't seen any reports indicating this. I think you're just seeing what you want to see.
At this point, it's more hearsay, but I want to start the conversation. Here's a post from a Digital Arts graduate with links to some of Trump's speeches:
Not OP, but I'm guessing this is the video in question. Something is very off, but idk if it's just heavily edited to make him coherent, or if they are using AI to make him look better.
Meh I don't think anything is all that off. Watched the short cut and the full speech just now.
The tweet mentions lack of hand movement, but he's covering his right hand the whole video. That's the hand that keeps popping up in photos with bruising. Could easily be explained by that.
The jerking motion that's highlighted isn't all that odd to me either.
I can't say I've ever seen a jerking motion like that in a video unless it's been spliced. I have no idea if it's ai or not, but this was definitely edited.
Look out the window behind him, there's a spot where the light or a glare on the window shifts pretty dramatically, indicating a time jump due to the "glitch". It's without a doubt at least edited. Editing a video of the president, on its own, doesn't mean much. What I am questioning is how the audio seemingly continues uninterrupted even though the video is clearly cut. That shouldn't be possible, the audio shouldn't match the video if that's the case. I can't tell though if maybe they cut the audio after the name "Charlie" and then there's potentially a very slight audible jump in the audio to the next word "and". Very hard to tell, someone who works on audio and video files would have to give an opinion. Anyway, the video is clearly at least edited, and to me, there is a hint that it could be AI if the audio is continual but the video isn't
That is kind of weird. Really it's the tree movement in the background that appears off. You can see the shape of the leaves themselves so you'd be able to tell if it was simply the wind moving the leaves/branches.
I don't think it's entirely Ai. There's absolutely either some Ai thrown in there or there's simply a poor video edit that was weirdly smoothed over. I'm normally extremely skeptical but this does look weird.
Yeah idk how people are saying it looks like a normal, unedited video. I have no idea if it's ai, but it at minimum oddly edited. My guess is they just had to do like 10 takes to keep him on topic, and the editing was clunky, but it's a pure guess.
I don't keep a record of every little thing I see in my life so that I can refer to it whenever someone asks me for a source and today's SEO-optimized Internet has made it basically impossible to find anything. You can either believe me or not, it's the same to me.
That's fine. But then don't say "it has been done already" if you can't back that up with a source. You're making a definitive statement and you can't even remember when you've seen it. Doesn't do much for credibility.
"Give me a source or I don't believe you" has become the weapon of anyone who wishes to contest any argument in a debate and it's very tiring. Someone else provided the source anyway, demonstrating that I was right.
‘I don’t remember where I learned this contestable statement, but you can believe me if you want’ isn’t really an argument that stands up to much scrutiny.
Regarding AI videos, you merely stated in passive voice that it “has been done already”. You then immaturely refused to provide any evidence to support your claim or even point to the time that it apparently had “been done already”. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
I'm saying that there are unusual movements in the footage that make me consider his body to be modified by AI. His face may still be his physical face, but his body and its movements may have been added or modified.
I watched the video and did not see anything unusual. There is precisely zero evidence that AI added or modified his body. Engaging in this brand of conspiracy-theory hobbyism is as unhelpful as it is baseless.
May? I didn't see anything that suggests AI. All I saw was an old man possibly hopped up on some sort of stimulant to give energy. I didn't see anything all that odd. Could you maybe point out specific time stamps in the speech that you think are evidence of AI.
I don't think it's live. It almost has green screen effect. And he's speaking so fast and his movements are also very fast. If you slow it down to .75 on youtube his speaking and movements seem much more natural.
So you think it was a faked live broadcast utilizing AI to fix, correct, or obscure certain aspects of his speech or appearance?
Thats not like, inconceivable theoretically. However your claim seems to be entirely based off of a “trust me bro” assertion about physical twitching indicating AI use.
Claims require evidence. There is no evidence of AI. Speciation then runs rampant in your claim about why he might be doing something that there is no indication he actually did.
Then you go on to the meat of your point about how bad and inappropriate this would be for a president to do. You’re building on a totally unsubstantiated premise.
You should change your mind because you don’t actually have any argument here.
The use of the autopen was a specific procedural complaint; the president must "sign" official actions, bills, etc. in order for them to take effect.
Speeches and videos and other communications are not necessarily procedural in the same way. Even when the president is compelled to speak (e.g. state of the union), the use of AI does not necessarily affect the official/procedural aspect.
Regardless of your opinion of either, you can't really compare them directly given that they are substantially different complaints.
The use of the autopen was a specific procedural complaint; the president must "sign" official actions, bills, etc. in order for them to take effect.
I think this ignores that the same person making this argument says that the president is so uniquely powerful (unitary executive theory) that he could declassify any document merely by thinking it. I have no opinion on the AI piece, but the argument on the autopen is just ridiculous bad faith coming from Trump. He doesn't believe his own argument (otherwise he wouldn't be using the autopen, which has has used extensively this term).
Sure, I'm not giving any credence to the argument that using the autopen is bad, only that we're talking about using "tools" for different aspects of the president's activities
Do you not think the president presenting himself as a physical and not an AI being to the American people is important for us to determine if our leader is fit for leadership? Heck, our country could be run by a goldfish in my kitchen if this concept is acceptable.
The goldfish cannot sign bills or otherwise make official actions. There is a difference between what we expect a leader to do and what a leader is required to do. The autopen is used to carry out required official actions. AI is used to carry out or aid in communications which, though important and expected, are not officially required.
Please explain why you think op is a bot. I looked back through their post history, and even though they reposted this elsewhere a few times, that's not very odd in and of itself. It's a newer account but they've commented on a variety of subs. I'm not opposed if you can explain, it's just that this feels like as detailed of an argument against op as the guy below saying op has Trump derangement syndrome
I get why the uncanny valley vibe feels off, but we’re still in rumor territory-no one’s confirmed it was AI. That twitch might just be lighting, stress, or even a meme clip looped out of context.
I used to freak out about deepfakes too, until I learned the tell-tale artifacts are still easy for experts to spot in real time. Network chyron overlays, multiple camera angles, and pool reporters in the room all add layers of verification. Compare that to an autopen that literally forges a signature with zero human present-no cameras, no witnesses. At least with a speech you’ve got audio engineers, journos, and the opposition party ready to pounce on any glitch.
What would change your mind-would a forensic media breakdown from an outlet you trust do it, or is the fear more about future potential than this specific clip?
Sorry, u/snyderman3000 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/snyderman3000 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, of lying, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
Saying ‘just because there is no evidence doesn’t mean it’s not happening’ is the wildest justification for an accusation. That is literally tinfoil conspiracy level shit
I imagine people fall into one of two camps. They either don’t think he’s using it, or they do think he’s using it and it’s a problem. I sincerely doubt that there are people who do think he’s using it and that’s not a big deal. I think you’re falling into a classic case of inventing a person to argue with.
Sorry, u/HanessyShabab – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
Sorry, u/Turbulent-Leg-2650 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
[removed]
I'm considering the argument used by many Trump supporters who think the autopen is a technology that should not be used in the US government. I agree that this has been used for a long time. I'm just questioning why some would consider the autopen so dangerous for American democracy when Trump has been modified by AI time and time again. It's really a scary concept if you consider how it could be used against the American people.
I believe that no one who thinks critically actually believes the autopen is in any way nefarious. I posit that the entire premise of your argument plays directly into their propaganda, which is to questions the most basic tools of government.
This is not a serious argument, it's just an attempt to justify Trump creating an "issue" out of thin air in order to cancel, overturn, or ignore any Biden executive action that he doesn't like. I guarantee that nobody making this argument had ever heard the term "autopen" before Trump started complaining about it.
I believe (and I'm not a Trump supporter by any means) the issue isn't necessarily the autopen itself, but the unauthorized use of it, such as cabinet members and advisors wielding the power of the Presidency without explicit permission from the POTUS to do so.
I mean there's no evidence of that they are suggesting that due to diminished capacity it must have happened but they have no evidence it actually did happen
Not saying there was or wasn't. OPs framing though is that people are arguing that the existence of an autopen is bad, as opposed to its use.
They don't think that. When a bully calls you a stupid gay nerd, he doesn't actually think that's true. He's just bullying you. Trump supporters don't think autopen is bad,the same way they don't think a lot of the things they say. They're just trying out an attack, trying to see what will stick.
Sorry, u/imsofreakingpissed – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
The fact that something has been a common practice for a long time is not a good argument for it not being wrong.
You also provide no reasoning for why autopen is a bad thing.
Its not. It just saves time.
Can you link to any trustworthy news source that shows evidence of the speech being AI? Because I haven't seen any reports indicating this. I think you're just seeing what you want to see.
At this point, it's more hearsay, but I want to start the conversation. Here's a post from a Digital Arts graduate with links to some of Trump's speeches:
https://www.reddit.com/r/lastweektonight/comments/1ndyzks/the_white_houses_last_3_videos_featuring_trump/
A youtube video from a previously published speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUDpBza7QZo
https://www.reddit.com/r/Hasan_Piker/comments/1ndwry1/trump_is_using_ai_for_official_speeches_now/
By "more hearsay" you mean "all hearsay"?
I didn't vote for Trump, but this is a little absurd.
Wait you think the video was AI and not actually Trump talking? I'm a little confused about that.
Haven't seen the video but it has been done already. Trump simply isn't capable of having a coherent discourse anymore.
When has it been done? When has a video that is actually an AI version of Trump been passed off as him actually speaking?
It hasn't, it's conspiracy nonsense about one video where they had a cut that was a little janky.
Not proven, but I’m pretty sure after Charlie Kirk had passed, the video statement from Trump was an AI generated video
I don't remember, it was some recorded announcement or discourse that clearly didn't appear natural.
I mean if you can't even point to which specific time this has happened, I can't really trust you when you say it has been done already.
Not OP, but I'm guessing this is the video in question. Something is very off, but idk if it's just heavily edited to make him coherent, or if they are using AI to make him look better.
Meh I don't think anything is all that off. Watched the short cut and the full speech just now.
The tweet mentions lack of hand movement, but he's covering his right hand the whole video. That's the hand that keeps popping up in photos with bruising. Could easily be explained by that.
The jerking motion that's highlighted isn't all that odd to me either.
I can't say I've ever seen a jerking motion like that in a video unless it's been spliced. I have no idea if it's ai or not, but this was definitely edited.
I have. It really wasn't all that odd.
Look out the window behind him, there's a spot where the light or a glare on the window shifts pretty dramatically, indicating a time jump due to the "glitch". It's without a doubt at least edited. Editing a video of the president, on its own, doesn't mean much. What I am questioning is how the audio seemingly continues uninterrupted even though the video is clearly cut. That shouldn't be possible, the audio shouldn't match the video if that's the case. I can't tell though if maybe they cut the audio after the name "Charlie" and then there's potentially a very slight audible jump in the audio to the next word "and". Very hard to tell, someone who works on audio and video files would have to give an opinion. Anyway, the video is clearly at least edited, and to me, there is a hint that it could be AI if the audio is continual but the video isn't
Can you share a speech that you think is similar?
That is kind of weird. Really it's the tree movement in the background that appears off. You can see the shape of the leaves themselves so you'd be able to tell if it was simply the wind moving the leaves/branches.
I don't think it's entirely Ai. There's absolutely either some Ai thrown in there or there's simply a poor video edit that was weirdly smoothed over. I'm normally extremely skeptical but this does look weird.
Yeah idk how people are saying it looks like a normal, unedited video. I have no idea if it's ai, but it at minimum oddly edited. My guess is they just had to do like 10 takes to keep him on topic, and the editing was clunky, but it's a pure guess.
I don't keep a record of every little thing I see in my life so that I can refer to it whenever someone asks me for a source and today's SEO-optimized Internet has made it basically impossible to find anything. You can either believe me or not, it's the same to me.
That's fine. But then don't say "it has been done already" if you can't back that up with a source. You're making a definitive statement and you can't even remember when you've seen it. Doesn't do much for credibility.
"Give me a source or I don't believe you" has become the weapon of anyone who wishes to contest any argument in a debate and it's very tiring. Someone else provided the source anyway, demonstrating that I was right.
Just trust me bro has become the weapon of anyone who wishes to defend any argument in a debate and it's very tiring.
If you make a claim, I want to see what you're basing that claim on. That's not unreasonable.
"This thing happened."
"Oh yeah? Where did you see it?"
"I can't show you where, but trust me it happened."
That's literally useless for a debate. If I don't know what you're talking about, your word as a random person on the internet means nothing.
At most that video I was given shows editing. Not AI. You have not been demonstrated to be right.
‘I don’t remember where I learned this contestable statement, but you can believe me if you want’ isn’t really an argument that stands up to much scrutiny.
It's not supposed to, it simply means that I don't care whether the person is convinced or not.
Then why are you here?
Nobody should believe anyone on the internet who's making claims without a source.
If you’re going to make claims it’s your obligation to source them. If you can’t be bothered to then keep your opinions to yourself
You should watch the video then. Commenting on whether the video was modified by AI without even watching it is asinine.
I commented that an AI generated video for this event is perfectly plausible because they have done it before. It seems like a point to me.
Regarding AI videos, you merely stated in passive voice that it “has been done already”. You then immaturely refused to provide any evidence to support your claim or even point to the time that it apparently had “been done already”. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
[removed]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
I'm saying that there are unusual movements in the footage that make me consider his body to be modified by AI. His face may still be his physical face, but his body and its movements may have been added or modified.
This is an insane conspiracy theory. There is absolutely zero evidence that his body movements were added or modified by AI.
Observe live videos of him and compare it to this one. Its unusual. There was another one like it earlier this year.
I watched the video and did not see anything unusual. There is precisely zero evidence that AI added or modified his body. Engaging in this brand of conspiracy-theory hobbyism is as unhelpful as it is baseless.
OP you have to provide reasonable evidence that it was created by AI before you post this autopen argument…
Oh, so you’re just making shit up?
May? I didn't see anything that suggests AI. All I saw was an old man possibly hopped up on some sort of stimulant to give energy. I didn't see anything all that odd. Could you maybe point out specific time stamps in the speech that you think are evidence of AI.
There were photographers in the room who were taking picture during the address. In these picutres he's very clearly actually in the room:
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/2251825456/photo/president-trump-delivers-address-to-nation.jpg?s=2048x2048&w=gi&k=20&c=i8RyTXGKH1Oe5rrqxBkPgd3S5EaYlq9-wEjPx0ONNDA=
www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-addresses-the-nation-from-the-news-photo/2251828179?adppopup=true
I don't think it's live. It almost has green screen effect. And he's speaking so fast and his movements are also very fast. If you slow it down to .75 on youtube his speaking and movements seem much more natural.
that probably is what i'm seeing then. it's just eerie. I do think we need to consider legislation on appropriate uses for AI regardless
So you think it was a faked live broadcast utilizing AI to fix, correct, or obscure certain aspects of his speech or appearance?
Thats not like, inconceivable theoretically. However your claim seems to be entirely based off of a “trust me bro” assertion about physical twitching indicating AI use.
Claims require evidence. There is no evidence of AI. Speciation then runs rampant in your claim about why he might be doing something that there is no indication he actually did.
Then you go on to the meat of your point about how bad and inappropriate this would be for a president to do. You’re building on a totally unsubstantiated premise.
You should change your mind because you don’t actually have any argument here.
Why was the speech such a rambling terrible mess then? Why use AI and leave it awful?
A fine point
The use of the autopen was a specific procedural complaint; the president must "sign" official actions, bills, etc. in order for them to take effect.
Speeches and videos and other communications are not necessarily procedural in the same way. Even when the president is compelled to speak (e.g. state of the union), the use of AI does not necessarily affect the official/procedural aspect.
Regardless of your opinion of either, you can't really compare them directly given that they are substantially different complaints.
I think this ignores that the same person making this argument says that the president is so uniquely powerful (unitary executive theory) that he could declassify any document merely by thinking it. I have no opinion on the AI piece, but the argument on the autopen is just ridiculous bad faith coming from Trump. He doesn't believe his own argument (otherwise he wouldn't be using the autopen, which has has used extensively this term).
Sure, I'm not giving any credence to the argument that using the autopen is bad, only that we're talking about using "tools" for different aspects of the president's activities
Do you not think the president presenting himself as a physical and not an AI being to the American people is important for us to determine if our leader is fit for leadership? Heck, our country could be run by a goldfish in my kitchen if this concept is acceptable.
The goldfish cannot sign bills or otherwise make official actions. There is a difference between what we expect a leader to do and what a leader is required to do. The autopen is used to carry out required official actions. AI is used to carry out or aid in communications which, though important and expected, are not officially required.
I think using AI manipulation is a huge problem. This post is a great example look at the profile and tell me this is not a bot.
Please explain why you think op is a bot. I looked back through their post history, and even though they reposted this elsewhere a few times, that's not very odd in and of itself. It's a newer account but they've commented on a variety of subs. I'm not opposed if you can explain, it's just that this feels like as detailed of an argument against op as the guy below saying op has Trump derangement syndrome
I get why the uncanny valley vibe feels off, but we’re still in rumor territory-no one’s confirmed it was AI. That twitch might just be lighting, stress, or even a meme clip looped out of context.
I used to freak out about deepfakes too, until I learned the tell-tale artifacts are still easy for experts to spot in real time. Network chyron overlays, multiple camera angles, and pool reporters in the room all add layers of verification. Compare that to an autopen that literally forges a signature with zero human present-no cameras, no witnesses. At least with a speech you’ve got audio engineers, journos, and the opposition party ready to pounce on any glitch.
What would change your mind-would a forensic media breakdown from an outlet you trust do it, or is the fear more about future potential than this specific clip?
Everyday, a nre blueanon theory
Well can't trust anything from a Qanon president who says everything but what's happening in reality. Forgive my concern.
True. He's an AI president. Never leaves the secret bunker. Etc etc. Keep digging lil bro
Thanks dude. Not trying to come up with false info, but i do think the conversation of AI use in governmental affairs needs to be addressed.
[removed]
Sorry, u/snyderman3000 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/snyderman3000 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
I'm wondering why Trump's AI use isn't being discussed then?
Because there is absolutely no proof or even evidence that’s he is. ‘The vibes are off’ isn’t evidence
Well that doesn't mean its not happening, it just means we're too f-ing lazy to look into this. He has frequently posted AI videos of himself intentionally, and his administration has created an AI action plan: https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/07/white-house-unveils-americas-ai-action-plan/
Saying ‘just because there is no evidence doesn’t mean it’s not happening’ is the wildest justification for an accusation. That is literally tinfoil conspiracy level shit
I imagine people fall into one of two camps. They either don’t think he’s using it, or they do think he’s using it and it’s a problem. I sincerely doubt that there are people who do think he’s using it and that’s not a big deal. I think you’re falling into a classic case of inventing a person to argue with.
[removed]
Sorry, u/HanessyShabab – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
The auto pen signs bills into law. That is always for use than any AI video
Using AI is worse than the use of autopen?
Some of the autopen use biden wasn’t even aware of. Don’t let your TDS let you make such ridiculous statements.
Where is the evidence of this?