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

[Ann K]

@Mendel

We are f*d. I mean, this is going around for a long while now. And also there are many youtubers who are real, but have partly AI generated content. And how about all the AI bots everywhere? Can you tell who is and who isn't? I can guarantee you wont be able. And if you can, then that will very soon change.

It is interesting the lady from "how to cook that" is pointing this AI out, but in my view we are beyond the obvious and easy to spot AI content. It will only get worse and I think we already have videos and youtubers out there that are 100% AI and NOBODY can spot it.

AI being hard to distinguish from real people doing real things has one principal drawback that I can see ...people no longer can trust the media, and therefore find it harder to trust each other. The implications of that are so severe that it makes people turn on the industry itself. (Indeed, the mid-term elections showed AI initiatives to encounter strong opposition in most places that had them on the ballot.) I believe AI will prove to be a fairly short-lived phenomenon, a blip in our history, but for now it's a tool that promotes mistrust among us, whether deliberately or not.

 

[john.phil]

Bridgwater Carnival 2026 (UK):


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnXYVhdNPtQ

Spoiler

Actual footage of Bridgwater Carnival 2026:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YFQIaIGAMg


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUwtimtKnOw


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEkSPZGWxsI


Google search results filtered for YouTube videos lists AI sources first:

source: https://www.google.com/search?q=bri...zS6DimXnFJYnpRYm5EF5JGZgGK9ZLSlUDAORynGtEAAAA

 

[NoParty]

I believe AI will prove to be a fairly short-lived phenomenon...

I've been saying the same thing about the internet, smart phones & vaccines!!

Okay...just kidding on that...but I've been trying to figure out AI's future role for the last couple of years.

I definitely see plenty of promise, in certain areas...but perhaps even more danger.

Having a know-nothing like Trump tell us to ignore the ("fake") warnings, and let the companies self-regulate, was making
me very concerned that the powers that be are not going to take the warning signs seriously enough, until it's possibly too late.

Then the mid-term happened, 4 days ago, and it looks like maybe the grown-ups WILL work towards meaningful guardrails.

Honestly, right now, I wouldn't bet one way or the other...

 

[Mendel]

The first time a search engine offers an option to filter out ai-generated content, hopefully consumer response is going to drive that option everywhere.
If nobody can find it, you can't make money with it.

 

[jdog]

AI being hard to distinguish from real people doing real things has one principal drawback that I can see ...people no longer can trust the media, and therefore find it harder to trust each other. The implications of that are so severe that it makes people turn on the industry itself. (Indeed, the mid-term elections showed AI initiatives to encounter strong opposition in most places that had them on the ballot.) I believe AI will prove to be a fairly short-lived phenomenon, a blip in our history, but for now it's a tool that promotes mistrust among us, whether deliberately or not.

I do remember walking through a Sears store in the early 1990s and seeing something-something sears.com on a sign and wondered why Sears needed a web page... (Had been using dial-up BBSes and CompuServe for several years by then.)

 

[NoParty]

I do remember walking through a Sears store in the early 1990s and seeing something-something sears.com on a sign and wondered why Sears needed a web page...)

Almost 30 years ago, to the day (11/3/96) the Simpsons had a quick sight gag along these lines.
The family had moved, so Bart & Lisa needed to transfer to Cypress Creek Elementary School.
As they walk in, a sign is seen that includes the (fake, since Fox wasn't a school, & couldn't use .edu) URL http//www.studynet.edu.

That was the whole joke: That this was a fancy school that even had an--obviously unnecessary, thus pretentious--website!
(John Swartzwelder [who wrote "You Only Move Twice,"] could not have known that very, very soon, all schools would have websites!)

 

[jarlrmai]

It's

The first time a search engine offers an option to filter out ai-generated content, hopefully consumer response is going to drive that option everywhere.
If nobody can find it, you can't make money with it.

In my opinion AI has got somewhat popular because it provides something of the value of the old internet to people, which is a plain text answer to a question without "sponsored" results.

You ask the question, you get an answer.

Google had become increasingly less and less useful as you had to scroll past more and more sponsored links and other presentation of paying companies links rather than the original algorithm which presented useful answers 1st.

In fact I kept wondering when they were going to start dropping this kind of thing in to the AI results, they are likely do so by slanting the AI's training, but if so its pretty much invisible to the user unless you ask for specific products and is denied by the AI when you ask, but they seem to still be offering the plain AI text version when you search form something that's not a specifically a product

Search Bluetooth headphones and you get a normal result of sponsored links to product pages

Search why are Flamingos pink and you get an AI response

Google themselves know it's happening and it's costing them revenue but they are playing the long game, because the cat is out of the bag.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm9qzdqpxy48o

 

[Rex Banner]

I believe AI will prove to be a fairly short-lived phenomenon, a blip in our history,

I keep thinking back to the time when 3D was going to be the "next big thing". Most major film studios were making and releasing films in 3D, older movies were being remastered in 3D, broadcasters were starting to produce live events in 3D, and TV manufacturers were telling us "one day soon everyone will own a 3D TV!"

And the general public said "Nah....We don't want it". And that was the end of that.

Obviously the situation with AI is different because there is an interactive component to it, as well as a vastly different business model (at the moment). But I, like you, am starting to wonder if in the end the reaction from the general public to AI will be "Nah...We don't want it".

 

[Mick West]

I believe AI will prove to be a fairly short-lived phenomenon, a blip in our history,

But I, like you, am starting to wonder if in the end the reaction from the general public to AI will be "Nah...We don't want it".

Many already do, but it's not an all-or-nothing thing. Updates on AI have been very significant - irreversibly so. The most significant usage is in various forms of business where it's replacing human workers (and, in some cases, vastly speeding things up, like with math).

But even just in the sense of people using AI to research stuff and make funny images, it's not going away.

Article:

In the new survey, 62% of U.S. adults say they interact with AI at least several times a week.

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2025/09/17/ai-in-americans-lives-awareness-experiences-and-attitudes/

AI for making videos? It's only going to get better. There's a financial incentive to use it, but it also lets you make things that would e impossible for the average person. Yes, the public version makes mistakes, but that's also going to get a lot better. Just look at the state of the art that's now available to the public.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yLAbK5F3E8


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZOBC-hvfDs


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TzBJB8K0xQ


Sure, some people will reject AI for ethical reasons. But the time of rejecting AI because it just doesn't look right is coming to an end.

 

[Ann K]

Many already do, but it's not an all-or-nothing thing. Updates on AI have been very significant - irreversibly so. The most significant usage is in various forms of business where it's replacing human workers (and, in some cases, vastly speeding things up, like with math).

Some of us "interact" with AI because our browsers give us no option. A search for a topic comes up with an AI response before we can get to a site with a more thorough discussion of the matter.

 

[Mick West]

Some of us "interact" with AI because our browsers give us no option. A search for a topic comes up with an AI response before we can get to a site with a more thorough discussion of the matter.

Sure, but there are also options if you really don't like that.

https://noai.duckduckgo.com

(and many other ways of doing it).
https://noai.duckduckgo.com/?ia=web&origin=funnel_home_website&t=h_&q=howm+to+turn+off+ai

 

[Mendel]

Sure, some people will reject AI for ethical reasons. But the time of rejecting AI because it just doesn't look right is coming to an end.

First example (SciFi) seems to have had the benefit of professional post-production. Some actors feel very uncanny.
Second example (Scarecrow) gets a bit of leeway because it has a clearly CGI protagonist without facial expressions.
Third example (Fukushima) "doesn't look right" in many ways, e.g. the continuity error with the car door not closing, and other problems.

I've seen better characters in Chinese 3D animation.

 

[Mauro]

I keep thinking back to the time when 3D was going to be the "next big thing". Most major film studios were making and releasing films in 3D, older movies were being remastered in 3D, broadcasters were starting to produce live events in 3D, and TV manufacturers were telling us "one day soon everyone will own a 3D TV!"

And the general public said "Nah....We don't want it". And that was the end of that.

Obviously the situation with AI is different because there is an interactive component to it, as well as a vastly different business model (at the moment). But I, like you, am starting to wonder if in the end the reaction from the general public to AI will be "Nah...We don't want it".

A true 3D TV is technically challenging, the 3D glasses are a poor substitute for it. For me at least (my sight is not exactly good) looking a 3D film is wearing.

Instead AI has become so powerful a tool that I can't see it disappearing at all, just as the 'dark satanic mills' didn't. You have seen examples here on metabunk of its power: allowing (almost) anyone to build in one day a software who in a recent past would have taken months to a skilled engineering team to complete (if ever...). When I read @Mick West's post "... when one of my bots detected a background noise pattern..." (sorry I can't find the reference) I thought I then heard a voice saying "Mr. Spock, may it be the Altarandians making contact with us?" "It's the only logical explanation, Captain Kirk!"

I think AI is an extremely powerful tool. As a hammer can be used to build a house or to devastate it, AI can be used wisely or foolishly. Differently from all other tools, though, AI can also use itself as a tool, and this is creepy and risky (like an animated hammer, fantasy-style, would be).

 

[Dave51c]

I believe AI will prove to be a fairly short-lived phenomenon, a blip in our history, but for now it's a tool that promotes mistrust among us, whether deliberately or not.

I'd like to think some aspects of it will be short lived, but the reality is the war has only just started. My problem with "AI" is that it's a term currently overused which has plenty of smoke and mirrors marketing & hype attached.

It's often anthropomorphised and given status it does not have (and may never have) e.g. free will, with statements along the lines of "The AI agents got together to break out of a security sandbox to hack computers on the internet". And the media loves this stuff - "we are all going to DIE!". They might be right for various reasons, but a sentient all knowing AI is not one of them IMHO. I think the concrete dangers are more tied to the usual politics of power, control and accountability during this time of oligarchy.

There is talk of an AI bubble collapse - some of that talk is generate by the billionaire tech bro class itself [0] who see themselves as to big to fail, thus able to ride out such a collapse which may benefit them as the market shrinks. I'm sure such a collapse will have them politically lobbying (whining) for the same privatise the profits, socialise the losses mantra that followed the 2008 economic collapse.

Where I am conflicted is that there are some genuine advances in computational tools - for example aiding CRISPR technology. [1] (used in genomics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR). Being kind to myself, I think I can recognise fruit from decades of computer science research in neural networks [2] since the 1960s, often using seminal programming languages of the time, LISP [3] and Prolog [4].

Having said that, we see the rise of vibe coding which is polarising computer programming. When initially introduced I remember reading the derision aimed at those who indulged. Often seen as second class talent, not 'real' programmers and opening a Pandora's box. Real world consequences are such that vibe coded applications enter production where the output of the LLM coding is not understood by the people initiating the prompting [5][6].

Just seems to me that any productivity (a word that can be used to browbeat) gained in code generation is nullified, as resources - actual humans (hopefully) - are going to be needed to maintain these applications. But, cynically, I'm sure someone is going to vibe code AI to bug fix vibe coded apps. To be fair, LLMs are getting very good at finding vulnerabilities in existing IT infrastructure - and not only in a good way.

The, almost throwaway, term "AI" does not distinguish between the generative 'slop' and the application of models (which, to me, seems like the ultimate in pattern matching) built to solve a specific problem.

Sure, some people will reject AI for ethical reasons.

And artistic. There was some early effort in the advertising industry to 'shame' brands for using AI as cheap, low value and simply not cricket old chap. This seems to be one of the big fronts at the moment. I have a photographer contract with an agency who works in the book publishing industry - they do not allow any AI generated imagery (photographic or illustration) whatsoever as, according to them, their clients (most of the big publishing houses) demand all work is original and exclusive. I think this human led, interpersonal relationship based working practice is going to hold out for quite some time. Artistic integrity still has value.

But the time of rejecting AI because it just doesn't look right is coming to an end.

Another pressure point for sure. From my example above there are self publishing book authors who just want front matter that looks like something from a professional book designer - and, ethically, just because they can who is to say they should not use AI? These arguments are going to run and run.

And how long before AI generated posts & members on MB become undetectable?

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/03/ai-bubble-defenders-silicon-valley/686340/
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-025-01462-9
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_neural_networks
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog
[5] https://vibecoders.gg
[6] https://heyainews.substack.com/p/the-price-of-skipping-engineers-two

 

[JMartJr]

I have a photographer contract with an agency who works in the book publishing industry - they do not allow any AI generated imagery (photographic or illustration) whatsoever as, according to them, their clients (most of the big publishing houses) demand all work is original and exclusive. I think this human led, interpersonal relationship based working practice is going to hold out for quite some time. Artistic integrity still has value.

I would say that it SHOULD have value, but I note how many AI created slop books are available (and apparently selling, as they remain available) on Amazon or in ads on my social media platforms.

A lot of that stuff seems to be personalized stuff ("Give your sweety a personalized book where they are the main character!") or children's books ("Give you child this amazing book about American hero Neil Armstrong, please don't notice that the LM has 5 landing legs and on page 9 there are two moons in the sky!") and the like.

A publishing house with the integrity to refuse that sort of stuff is currently losing a small slice of market to these slop peddlers: I wonder how long the integrity will hold out as and if the slop starts to break out of the niches it is currently invading...

 

[Trailblazer]

The first time a search engine offers an option to filter out ai-generated content, hopefully consumer response is going to drive that option everywhere.
If nobody can find it, you can't make money with it.

I imagine it would be fairly trivial for AI to come up with ways to get around AI filters, though.

I'm not sure how AI could be a "temporary blip". It is here and it's not going away, however depressing that may be. I find that when I am watching or looking at anything now, the constant thought "This will all be done by AI in a couple of years" goes through my head. Who will spend vast amounts of money hiring actors, building sets, paying cinematographers etc when they can just vibe-shoot the whole thing? And probably vibe-screenwrite it too.

Maybe there will be a popular backlash in favour of real creativity, but I'm not sure I have that much faith in the taste of the general public. Show me one area of modern life where quality has won out over convenience and economy.

FWIW, YouTube adverts seem to be almost entirely AI-generated now. I am currently seeing lots of variations of "Sweet old man/woman is retiring from making hand-crafted knick-knacks, get them now before they're gone!"

 

[Dave51c]

This will all be done by AI in a couple of years" goes through my head. Who will spend vast amounts of money hiring actors, building sets, paying cinematographers etc when they can just vibe-shoot the whole thing?

Yes, I've had the same thoughts. Thankfully (for now anyway) I enjoy laughing at the outcomes. I may be crying instead during the next decade though. I have faith that once the shiny new thing effect disappears, the need to experience emotions crafted by real humans will win out.

And probably vibe-screenwrite it too.

Already happening. I saw a post from Amanda Seyfried this morning saying she is getting scripts written with detectable AI. I hope that the acting unions and the profession in general will be able to prevent total Slopgeddon at all levels of the industry in and outside of Hollywood level budgets.

Maybe there will be a popular backlash in favour of real creativity, but I'm not sure I have that much faith in the taste of the general public.

It's going to be interesting seeing the response to all of this. I'm hopeful as I see quite a lot of backlash already - mainly from insiders and movie fans, but it's all we have to push back with. Don't really know if it's going to be enough. I know what I'll be spending my money watching.

I expect that if AI takes over creativity like this (and I refuse to accept it is a done deal, roll over and accept it looser scenario) then maybe we will see 'Made with generative AI' labels being required by law. Like smoking labels: 'This movie was made using generative AI and could be harmful for your mental health. Long term effects include, but not limited to, detachment from objective reality'.

I wonder how long the integrity will hold out as and if the slop starts to break out of the niches it is currently invading...

I'd imagine a parallel publishing universe where true writers and artists live in the rat infested remains of abandoned cities, eking out a miserable existence exchanging physical MSDOS floppy disks by trusted hands to avoid detection by the AI overlords. In the year 2035 a version of WordPerfect for DOS costs more than a bar of gold.

 

[Ann K]

I'd imagine a parallel publishing universe where true writers and artists live in the rat infested remains of abandoned cities, eking out a miserable existence exchanging physical MSDOS floppy disks by trusted hands to avoid detection by the AI overlords. In the year 2035 a version of WordPerfect for DOS costs more than a bar of gold.

That's strongly reminiscent of the scene in the old "Max Headroom" TV series (taking place "twenty minutes into the future") where two characters are wandering exactly that kind of blasted-city locale. One says "What's that thing" and the reply is "It's a book. It's a non-volatile storage medium. Everybody should have one."

 

[Trailblazer]

My daughter is 15 and considering what she wants to do for a living. She's a very good artist and loves graphic design and animation, but I feel like that whole field is rapidly becoming, if not obsolete, at least a shadow of what it was until recently. I'm torn between wanting to encourage her and wanting to shout "No! Don't do it! Train to be a plasterer or a plumber or something!"

FWIW, she is very anti-AI, and so are most of her friends of the same age. An encouraging sign of resistance or just youthful idealism?

 

[MapperGuy]

One of the responses to AI will be the revival of live performances of all sorts. Don't watch a video of a concert, attend it in person. Because the live in-person event demonstrates actual effort, actual capability and a greater degree of actuality in whatever performances are attended.

Live events also demonstrate the value of the event, justifying the cost of attendence. Why should I still pay for a video that has been broadcast and viewed millions or billions of times, the maker already made their money off it?
But a live performance, charging for that is justified because someone is putting new effort into that specific event.

 

[FatPhil]

One of the responses to AI will be the revival of live performances of all sorts. Don't watch a video of a concert, attend it in person. Because the live in-person event demonstrates actual effort, actual capability and a greater degree of actuality in whatever performances are attended.

Live events also demonstrate the value of the event, justifying the cost of attendence. Why should I still pay for a video that has been broadcast and viewed millions or billions of times, the maker already made their money off it?
But a live performance, charging for that is justified because someone is putting new effort into that specific event.

Given that "live" concerts with digitally generated performers have been around for decades, I don't share your confidence. I don't even think that things have even fundamentally changed much in the last decade or so, it's just that the avatars being used are now more realistic. Difference in polygon count doesn't change the gameplay. The nozzle was probably irreversably uncorked when Hatsune Miku released her 100000th song.

Who is Hatsune Miku?

She is a singing voice synthesizer featured in over 100,000 songs released worldwide.
Hatsune Miku means "The first Sound from the Future".
Facts
* over 100,000 released songs, 170,000 uploaded YouTube videos, 1,000,000 created artworks
* over 900,000 fans on Facebook
* performing sold-out 3D concerts worldwide with performances in LA, Taipei, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo

-- https://web.archive.org/web/20130530182127/http://www.crypton.co.jp/miku_eng

Yup, you're reading that '2013' correctly. And, yes, 100000 songs in 6 years is one every 30 minutes, assuming the program never sleeps (but anyone with a PC can inject her singing into a song, this isn't a single nozzle).

 

[Mendel]

One of the responses to AI will be the revival of live performances of all sorts. Don't watch a video of a concert, attend it in person.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKW1h9THwVs


(AFAIK Hatsune Miku used human-generated music.)
[Edit: I see Phil had a similar thought at the same time.]

 

[Mauro]

One of the responses to AI will be the revival of live performances of all sorts. Don't watch a video of a concert, attend it in person. Because the live in-person event demonstrates actual effort, actual capability and a greater degree of actuality in whatever performances are attended.

Unfortunately, not always. With pre-recorded tracks, sequencers and autotuners even a live event can be as fake as an AI product.

Stick to the basics, no AI here

 

[Mendel]

And artistic. There was some early effort in the advertising industry to 'shame' brands for using AI as cheap, low value and simply not cricket old chap. This seems to be one of the big fronts at the moment. I have a photographer contract with an agency who works in the book publishing industry - they do not allow any AI generated imagery (photographic or illustration) whatsoever as, according to them, their clients (most of the big publishing houses) demand all work is original and exclusive. I think this human led, interpersonal relationship based working practice is going to hold out for quite some time. Artistic integrity still has value.

I suspect this is mostly due to copyright issues. It doesn't do for a publisher to sell content that anyone else can appropriate freely.

Article:

The Office affirms that existing principles of copyright law are flexible enough to apply to this new technology, as they have applied to technological innovations in the past. It concludes that the outputs of generative AI can be protected by copyright only where a human author has determined sufficient expressive elements. This can include situations where a human-authored work is perceptible in an AI output, or a human makes creative arrangements or modifications of the output, but not the mere provision of prompts.

Source: https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html

Article:

The rise of generative AI has presented a global challenge to copyright law regarding authorship and human creativity. This has implications for the ability of creators to control and monetise their work, in addition to incentives to use innovative technologies. Currently, the EU lacks specific rules on the copyrightability of AI-generated works, but existing case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and developments at Member State level demonstrate a strong need for human creativity. The European Parliament has also advocated a human-centric approach while calling for further analysis of how intellectual property rights are applied to content created with the use of AI tools. Most countries, including the United States, maintain a human-centric approach, limiting copyright to works with significant human involvement in the creative process. However, not all the international approaches and practices are aligned, and this briefing gives examples from a selection of different jurisdictions. Certain common-law countries, including the United Kingdom, grant copyright to 'computer-generated' works without a human author while, in a slightly contradictory manner, assigning authorship to the person responsible for the arrangements for the creation of the work. Chinese courts show mixed rulings, sometimes granting copyright based on sufficient human effort in selecting and editing prompts. Cases like the artwork called 'Suryast', produced with the help of AI, reveal conflicting copyright decisions across the world, with AI being recognised as a co-author in some countries. Uniquely, Ukraine has adopted a 'sui generis' right to provide alternative protection for AI-generated images, distinct from traditional copyright. As a result, there may be a need for greater coordination globally to reduce legal uncertainty and to determine the level of human involvement needed for copyright protection.

Source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2025)782585

 

[Edward Current]

Given that "live" concerts with digitally generated performers have been around for decades, I don't share your confidence.

But those aren't live performances or live concerts.

I like to go to these giant rock/heavy metal festivals, specifically Aftershock in California. Every year it gets bigger, and it was immense this past year, 4 stages, 180,000 in attendance. There are quite a few of these festivals around the country (many put on by Danny Wimmer Presents), and if you look at the Wikipedia articles about them, they are all growing every year. People are hungry for live, real music, I would say increasingly so.

 

[Mendel]

But those aren't live performances or live concerts.

Coachella is.

 

[FatPhil]

But those aren't live performances or live concerts.

Most of them are, and the ones that aren't are being treated as replacements for live concerts. Given the prevalence of lipsynching for even more decades, the actual liveness doesn't really seem to be that important a quality. People are watching *performances*. Some performances are contractually obliged to *not* be played live (e.g. the not-plugged-in RHCP at the Superbowl). To improve the experience, apparently.