Is anything real?

Now with AI< it has become common place to doubt one's own eyes. This is because AI has made it possible to mass produce videos that appear to be the real deal, without the event's depicted in the work being accurately portrayed. This is why AI tags should be placed on all videos and photos that have been altered using AI so that crime imagery can't be faked. If these tags are in laid into the work themselves, it will allow us to flag the video for a closer look at what is altered in the video or image. While this can have certain effects on how the image is scene, in criminal cases, it is my not so humble opinion that such files should be highly examined for alterations, and then have record of those alterations made public to the court for use in the case. This can also be a useful method in Intellectual Property Disputes.

So if this solution is so simple, why is it not being implemented. The reason is that in order for such analysis to be performed, the assistance of AI may be required. Courts have been using AI in the form of programs like Compass to determine recidivism rates, but due to the nature of AI and how cases are handled, it can be a breech of duty to allow AI anywhere near evidence because it breaks confidentiality rules, and in general an insecure method. It is the ultimate paradox; to identify the crime, you need to take a look inside a black box, but looking inside the Blackbox requires the use of another Blackbox. and both boxes are accessible to anyone with a computer. 

So what do you do? Give the people the tools to determine the truth, and make the use of such tools in the case optional; meaning both parties must agree to the use of the analysis tool. In criminal matters, make use of the tool mandatory in cases where evidence is suspected of being fabricated. The tool should also be held by a neutral third party that has a full understanding of the tool's proper use as well legal background(JD or at least a BS in PreLaw). 

After the investigation is conducted with the assistance of the tool, the human should be the one making the final recommendation and a full report of all findings from the analysis of the falsified evidence or true evidence should be provided with the following:

1. Determination of fake or inclusion of real imagery or documentation.

2. If Real imagery or Documentation was included, what alterations were made and how were they made.

3. Expert testimony on how alterations were made.

4. A signed Affidavit of findings and affirmation that they are accurate to the best of the signatory's knowledge.

5. Methods and Code used to make the changes, and generate the imagery or documents.

As AI evolves, we need ways for humans to identify that which has been made with it's use. Otherwise, we can't have AI unrestricted and available to all, which is what those in power want most. 

Make no mistake, the snakes in congress wish to monopolize the befits of AI, and sell them back to us claiming that the restrictions are for our own good. But no one person or group should monopolize a tool no matter what the implications of that tool are. It is no different than taking away your right to bear arms.