What we’ve been getting wrong about AI’s truth crisis
The AI Truth Crisis: What We've Been Getting Wrong
The era of truth decay, where AI content dupes us, shapes our beliefs even when we catch the lie, and erodes societal trust in the process, is now here. The confirmation that the US Department of Homeland Security is using AI video generators from Google and Adobe to make content that it shares with the public is a stark reminder of the reality we've been warned about.
The White House's Digital Alteration
On January 22, the White House posted a digitally altered photo of a woman arrested at an ICE protest, one that made her appear hysterical and in tears. This incident sparked a wave of reactions from readers who saw no point in reporting that DHS was using AI to edit content shared with the public, because news outlets were apparently doing the same. They pointed to the fact that the news network MS Now (formerly MSNBC) shared an image of Alex Pretti that was AI-edited and appeared to make him look more handsome.
The Flaw in Our Preparation
The reactions reveal a flaw in how we were collectively preparing for this moment. Warnings about the AI truth crisis revolved around a core thesis: that not being able to tell what is real will destroy us, so we need tools to independently verify the truth. However, these tools are failing, and while vetting the truth remains essential, it is no longer capable on its own of producing the societal trust we were promised.
The Content Authenticity Initiative
There was plenty of hype in 2024 about the Content Authenticity Initiative, cofounded by Adobe and adopted by major tech companies, which would attach labels to content disclosing when it was made, by whom, and whether AI was involved. However, Adobe applies automatic labels only when the content is wholly AI-generated. Otherwise, the labels are opt-in on the part of the creator.
The Limitations of Transparency
Noticing how much traction the White House's photo got even after it was shown to be AI-altered, I was struck by the findings of a very relevant new paper published in the journal Communications Psychology. In the study, participants watched a deepfake "confession" to a crime, and the researchers found that even when they were told explicitly that the evidence was fake, participants relied on it when judging an individual's guilt. In other words, even when people learn that the content they're looking at is entirely fake, they remain emotionally swayed by it.
The Need for a New Masterplan
"Transparency helps, but it isn't enough on its own," the disinformation expert Christopher Nehring wrote recently about the study's findings. "We have to develop a new masterplan of what to do about deepfakes." AI tools to generate and edit content are getting more advanced, easier to operate, and cheaper to run—all reasons why the US government is increasingly paying to use them. We were well warned of this, but we responded by preparing for a world in which the main danger was confusion. What we're entering instead is a world in which influence survives exposure, doubt is easily weaponized, and establishing the truth does not serve as a reset button.
The Defenders of Truth Are Trailing Behind
The defenders of truth are already trailing way behind. We need to develop new strategies to counter the influence of AI-generated content and to promote a culture of critical thinking and media literacy. This will require a concerted effort from governments, tech companies, and civil society organizations to develop and implement effective solutions.
Conclusion
The AI truth crisis is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a comprehensive and nuanced approach. We need to move beyond the simplistic solutions of the past and develop new strategies that take into account the evolving nature of AI-generated content. By working together, we can create a future where truth and trust are not sacrificed to the altar of influence and manipulation.
Deep Dive
Artificial Intelligence
The great AI hype correction of 2025
Four ways to think about this year's reckoning.
By Will Douglas Heaven
Meet the new biologists treating LLMs like aliens
By studying large language models as if they were living things instead of computer programs, scientists are discovering some of their secrets for the first time.
By Will Douglas Heaven
Yann LeCun's new venture is a contrarian bet against large language models
In an exclusive interview, the AI pioneer shares his plans for his new Paris-based company, AMI Labs.
By Caiwei Chen
What's next for AI in 2026
Our AI writers make their big bets for the coming year—here are five hot trends to watch.
By Rhiannon Williams
Will Douglas Heaven
Caiwei Chen
James O'Donnell
Michelle Kim
Stay connected
Illustration by Rose Wong
Get the latest updates from MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.
Enter your email
Privacy PolicyThank you for submitting your email!
Explore more newsletters
It looks like something went wrong.
We're having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you'd like to receive.
