Anika Begay
Suffice it to say that this mountain of evidence from direct sources weighs more than the strong images of conservative commentators like Chuck Callesto AND Dinesh D’Souzaboth caught spreading election disinformation in the past.
When it comes to AI hoax accusations, the more disparate sources of information you have, the better. While a single source can easily generate a plausible-looking image of an event, multiple independent sources showing the same event from multiple angles are far less likely to be implicated in the same hoax. Photos that align with video evidence are even better, especially since creating convincing long videos of humans or complex scenes remains a challenge for many AI tools.
It is also important to track down the original source of any supposed AI image you are looking at. It is incredibly easy for a social media user to create an AI-generated image, claim it came from a news report or live footage of an event, and then use obvious flaws in that fake image as “proof” that the event itself was faked. Links to the original images from an original source’s website or verified account are much more reliable than screenshots that could have originated anywhere (and/or been edited by anyone).
Telltale Signs
While tracking down original and/or corroborating sources is useful for a major news event like a presidential rally, confirming the authenticity of images and videos with just one source can be more challenging. Tools like Winston AI Image Detector or IsItAI.com claim to use machine learning models to figure out whether an image is AI or not. But while detection techniques continue to evolve, these types of tools are typically based on unproven theories that have not been proven reliable in any large-scale studies, making the prospect of false positives/negatives a real risk.
Writing on LinkedIn, UC Berkeley professor Hany Farid cited two GetReal Labs models that show “no evidence of AI generation” in Trump’s Harris rally photos. Farid went on to cite specific parts of the image that point to its authenticity.
“The text on the signs and the plane show none of the usual signs of generative AI,” Farid writes. “While the lack of evidence of manipulation is not proof that the image is real, we find no evidence that this image is AI-generated or digitally altered.”
And even when parts of a photo appear to be nonsensical signs of AI manipulation (like the deformed hands in some AI image models), consider that there may be a simple explanation for some apparent optical illusions. The BBC notes that the lack of a reflection of the crowd on the plane in some photos of the Harris rally could be caused by a large empty area of tarmac between the plane and the crowd, as shown in reverse angles of the scene. Simply circling strange-looking things in a photo with a red marker isn’t necessarily strong evidence of AI manipulation in and of itself.
