Failing to disclose any AI usage carries a $1,000 fine. There was no AI used, so there's no, there's no problem or issue under the law. This is a desperate distraction. The explanation deals with, you know, not wanting to have a photo of her smiling as we're talking about her making a bad decision in her past. That's what the thinking was of the people producing the video. Crawford's campaign releasing a statement saying in park quote, we urge the ethics commission to thoroughly investigate this matter, … (01:17–01:27)
CLAIM
Asserts that the decision to alter the image was to avoid showing [Susan Crawford] smiling while discussing her past decisions.
This is an excerpt from a raw transcript. The assertions have not been audited or verified. Tap the video to view the source footage and understand the context.
