Yeah, sorry, no. The Guardian is writing in a way obviously intended to make careless readers (which means most readers) think that the whole video is known to be AI-generated. No, they don't actually say that; they invite the reader to believe it while carefully not saying it.
No professional writer would do that by accident. The writing is very obviously slanted in a way meant to mislead the audience. I don't know what their motives for misleading people may be. I suspect it's mostly to sex up the story by exaggerating ther sensational "AI" angle more, because, hey, who cares if you escalate a conflict and get more people killed when there are clicks and views and ad impressions to be had.
But the fact that they are intentionally misleading people is evident in their own words.
As for the actual video, it's trivial to find stuff that will generate the talking head for you, and they probably did that so they wouldn't have to have any of their own people on camera. That's zero evidence in either direction about the veracity of the important parts, even though the Guardian is trying to use it to cast doubt on those parts.
The "unverified images" themselves may or may not be real, but almost certainly are NOT AI-generated. As you yourself noticed, it's still easier, even today to just use old stuff or stuff from other wars.
And honestly there's going to be more than enough real evil done in any war that you could make a video like that if you had some kind of omniscient camera.
I don’t agree that this is “obviously intended” to make people think it’s AI. Theres lot of possibilities besides AI; it could be old footage, the parties could be misidentified, it could be from a different conflict, it could be taken out of context. “Unverified” is a pretty standard way to characterize a video when you haven’t vetted its source.
No professional writer would do that by accident. The writing is very obviously slanted in a way meant to mislead the audience. I don't know what their motives for misleading people may be. I suspect it's mostly to sex up the story by exaggerating ther sensational "AI" angle more, because, hey, who cares if you escalate a conflict and get more people killed when there are clicks and views and ad impressions to be had.
But the fact that they are intentionally misleading people is evident in their own words.
As for the actual video, it's trivial to find stuff that will generate the talking head for you, and they probably did that so they wouldn't have to have any of their own people on camera. That's zero evidence in either direction about the veracity of the important parts, even though the Guardian is trying to use it to cast doubt on those parts.
The "unverified images" themselves may or may not be real, but almost certainly are NOT AI-generated. As you yourself noticed, it's still easier, even today to just use old stuff or stuff from other wars.
And honestly there's going to be more than enough real evil done in any war that you could make a video like that if you had some kind of omniscient camera.