AI videos are getting very good. How do we detect their trickery?

[Mendel]

Any video claimed as evidence now needs to come from reputable and known sources. IMO though, video evidence only — short of a 9/11-type situation, or the proverbial press conference on the White House lawn — is not commensurate with the claim of NHI on Earth.

Don't make that exception! The 9/11 footage came from TV stations. A press conference video that just appears on the Internet is not credible unless you can find it from a trusted source (and it's not April 1st).

My fear is that we are approaching a crisis point where attorneys will be able to sway juries with these "it was AI" arguments and there will be no feasible way for a non-expert to decide the issue. And by expert I suspect one will need to spot violations of the Laws of Thermodynamics to realize which parts of a video are impossible.
It is not clear to me that free elections and fair trials can survive this state of affairs.

The legal system has survived the century-old ability to retouch photos by requiring testimony from the photographer, or from the cop who took the video from the surveillance system, with a documented chain of custody from the origin to the courtroom. And faking any of that is a criminal act.

What about in the other direction? Lots of evidence shows that my client was the one who robbed the bank, but here is a very clear and convincing video showing that he was in Aruba at the time, look, you can see the beads of condensation on his glass of Banana Daiquiri, and here is the ACTUAL UNDOCTORED (nudge nudge wink wink) footage that the prosecution does not want you to see that shows some random other person doing the deed. Sure, ONE of these must be faked, but which one? And if you can;t tell which one, isn't that "reasonable doubt??? Yer honer, I rest my case."

Same reasoning applies: this requires provenance.

The legal system will be mostly fine.
The court of public opinion is where the damage is done.

 

[JMartJr]

The legal system will be mostly fine.
The court of public opinion is where the damage is done.

But recall that the legal system is brimming with 12 (or sometimes 6) folks from the public (who make up the court of public opinion) to make a lot of the decisions. And the defense does not need to prove anything, just to introduce doubt. In a pinch, introducing doubt to one stubborn person out of the jury is sufficient for today. A public that is being taught that weird AI pictures of nonsense are real is going to be a problem in courts, as well as elsewhere.