AI “Evidence”
In a recent court case, a plaintiff submitted video evidence, but the judge was suspicious. The video glitched and looked unnatural, leading the judge to conclude that the evidence was AI-generated.
Video is the gold standard in our society, and we consume hours of the stuff every day. As a result, we unquestionably accept this visual information into our moral/legal judgment. Meaning that if we see a video of a person doing something wrong, our opinion is swift and not prone to change. Likewise, if a jury watches a person not commit a crime, they also reach an unshakable conclusion. Our eyes do not lie!
Yet the above article reveals a massive crack in our foundation of judgment. This is going to be very difficult to repair because, starting about a year ago, AI-generated videos have evolved to the point where they can even fool some experts. And normal people? We are taken right into video fantasy.
Will technology save us with tools that detect AI-generated video? Perhaps. Will new laws be enacted that require an AI video digital imprint to allow courts to determine the source? Perhaps. Will technology be developed to remove these digital imprints? Of course. Will normal people use this removal software? You bet! Will AI-generated video enter aspects of our lives that we cannot even fathom? There is no doubt.
What does this mean? It means that we can no longer trust video, and we must take steps to incorporate this new reality into our personal judgment process.
I like to include a writing tie-in in my articles, but it will take some time to explain. Way back when, a new form of evidence was invented: the fingerprint. From that point forward, it became a courtroom requirement to present fingerprint evidence to the jury. Then photographs, audio recordings, films, videos, computer information, and, finally, DNA entered the courtroom. As a result, a jury would be suspicious if high-tech evidence is not presented.
Still, there have been many famous instances of faked evidence. The problem was that faking technical evidence was beyond the reach of the common person because it required specialized software/hardware, significant time and money, and an expert. Thus, it was very unlikely to see in a normal court case. That is no longer true, and the entire justice system is under attack.
My tie-in is that writers must be aware of major society changes like this one. For example, if I were to write a scene set in the present in which a character uses a typewriter instead of a computer to write a letter, it would read as out of place. Thus, my upcoming plots must take AI-generated video evidence into account.
Courts are a powerful part of our society. They are full of intrigue, rules, and complex legal jargon, which culminates in a dramatic scene when the judge reads the verdict. This makes them the perfect setting for fictional and nonfictional stories.
And it turns out that in an upcoming book now in the editing stage, I have a court scene where a bunch of teenagers have their phones confiscated, leading to video evidence. And it was perfect! That is, until I read the above article. With my eyes open, I made changes resulting in a more realistic plot. Good catch.
Well, that wraps things up for writing about everything AI. Right? Um, not so fast. I came across this today:
Yet the above article reveals a massive crack in our foundation of judgment. This is going to be very difficult to repair because, starting about a year ago, AI-generated videos have evolved to the point where they can even fool some experts. And normal people? We are taken right into video fantasy.
Will technology save us with tools that detect AI-generated video? Perhaps. Will new laws be enacted that require an AI video digital imprint to allow courts to determine the source? Perhaps. Will technology be developed to remove these digital imprints? Of course. Will normal people use this removal software? You bet! Will AI-generated video enter aspects of our lives that we cannot even fathom? There is no doubt.
What does this mean? It means that we can no longer trust video, and we must take steps to incorporate this new reality into our personal judgment process.
I like to include a writing tie-in in my articles, but it will take some time to explain. Way back when, a new form of evidence was invented: the fingerprint. From that point forward, it became a courtroom requirement to present fingerprint evidence to the jury. Then photographs, audio recordings, films, videos, computer information, and, finally, DNA entered the courtroom. As a result, a jury would be suspicious if high-tech evidence is not presented.
Still, there have been many famous instances of faked evidence. The problem was that faking technical evidence was beyond the reach of the common person because it required specialized software/hardware, significant time and money, and an expert. Thus, it was very unlikely to see in a normal court case. That is no longer true, and the entire justice system is under attack.
My tie-in is that writers must be aware of major society changes like this one. For example, if I were to write a scene set in the present in which a character uses a typewriter instead of a computer to write a letter, it would read as out of place. Thus, my upcoming plots must take AI-generated video evidence into account.
Courts are a powerful part of our society. They are full of intrigue, rules, and complex legal jargon, which culminates in a dramatic scene when the judge reads the verdict. This makes them the perfect setting for fictional and nonfictional stories.
And it turns out that in an upcoming book now in the editing stage, I have a court scene where a bunch of teenagers have their phones confiscated, leading to video evidence. And it was perfect! That is, until I read the above article. With my eyes open, I made changes resulting in a more realistic plot. Good catch.
Well, that wraps things up for writing about everything AI. Right? Um, not so fast. I came across this today:
Gahhh… AI is taking over the world, and everything is bad? Well, I guess every writer will have to switch to dystopian plots—another good catch.
You’re the best -Bill
February 25, 2026
You’re the best -Bill
February 25, 2026
