Video evidence may not be trusted as evidence in court in the future. Will we require something more perhaps? Or will the word of AI keen on spotting something's off be what we trust?
Has forensic analysis been defeated by a deep fake? At least in the courts cases won't depend on the jury being able to 'tell by the pixels' and instead experts will get called in. Whoever that ends up being, if they can do their job and authenticate a video at least as well as they already can with photoshops we should be fine.
Photoshop didn't cause society to collapse and photoshop-for-video won't either.
That's kind of encouraging. The lying experts and underfunded defense attorneys out there didn't bring about the end of days with the appearance of photoshop, and it's unlikely that they will now either. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't try to fix those problems...
I'm already somewhat hopeful that if deepfakes can be reliably detected juries will be automatically skeptical of unauthenticated videos and prosecutors will view getting their videos authenticated as an easy way to strengthen their case. I already suspect close to every picture I see has been edited and altered somehow.
Maybe we will only trust video from cameras with embedded cryptographic functionality when the cryptographic checks verify it hasn't been tampered with?
(And even then sometimes wonder if a hardware hack was involved)
