Generative AI is reshaping the information landscape, offering powerful tools but also exposing new vulnerabilities. Organizations must now contend with AI-driven misinformation from external sources, posing substantial risks to charities and not-for-profits. In last month’s AI Update, we examined the risks of “AI slop” — low-quality, error-prone content that can emerge when charities and not-for-profits rely too heavily on generative AI systems (“GenAI”). As GenAI reshapes information flows, organizations must also confront the growing risk of externally generated misinformation.
From deepfakes and fabricated news stories to bots impersonating supporters or experts, GenAI tools are increasingly being used to confuse, provoke, and exploit. For directors and officers of charities and not-for-profits, the challenge is not just how to use AI responsibly, but how to defend against misinformation – including deliberate disinformation – from external sources.
Unlike internal “AI slop”, i.e. content generated carelessly by staff or volunteers, external threats include disinformation campaigns, inaccurate legal commentary, and deceptive online interactions. Directors and officers of organizations are particularly vulnerable, given their visibility, responsibility for public-facing responses, and governance roles. Allowing an organization to rely on misinformation, even in good faith, can cause significant reputational, financial, and even regulatory harm.
One concerning development is AI-generated or manipulated media falsely attributed to charities and not-for-profits or their leadership. In one example from the for-profit sector, reported on by the Guardian, scammers used a voice-cloning tool to impersonate the CEO of WPP, a global PR firm, during a virtual meeting, nearly convincing executives to transfer funds and disclose sensitive information. Similar techniques could be used to create deepfakes depicting executives making controversial endorsements or announcements. These fakes can be highly convincing and may spread widely before being debunked, sowing confusion among donors and stakeholders. Advocacy organizations are particularly at risk, as malicious actors may seek to distort their messaging or discredit their leadership.
Fabricated news stories are another emerging concern. Fictitious headlines may lead to organizations publicly commenting on “fake news” as though it were genuine, tarnishing their reputation and credibility. These reports often spread through bots, email newsletters, or clickbait blogs, forming a false web of confirmation that is hard to untangle. Even a brief reliance on a misinformation campaign can erode public trust. Directors and officers should avoid acting on third-party content unless it is verified through trusted sources, such as multiple reputable news sources, government websites, or verified social media accounts.
Social media presents another layer of risk. AI bots are now used by bad actors – including hackers, political agents, and fraudsters – to infiltrate conversations and manipulate discourse. Charities and not-for-profits are not immune to this threat, and have likely engaged with such actors unknowingly. These bots may provoke arguments, or amplify misleading content to simulate consensus or controversy. This manipulation can influence decisions if organizations rely too heavily on online feedback. Executives managing organizational accounts must remain vigilant when interpreting engagement or responding to unfamiliar profiles.
In our next article, we will outline practical steps charities and not-for-profits can take to guard against these emerging threats, focusing on proactive measures and safeguards to support informed and confident decision-making.