AI-generated images are making it impossible to distinguish truth from fiction. We need laws and AI watermarks to protect our shared reality.

1. Technology
2. Artificial Intelligence

AI-generated images are making it impossible to distinguish truth from fiction. We need laws and AI watermarks to protect our shared reality.

Generative AI is destroying the baseline assumption that photographs bear some causal connection to reality. That's bad news for democracy.

By Akhil Bhardwaj published 23 May 2026 in Opinion MEMBER EXCLUSIVE

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.

Grainy, chaotic and blurred images of the Allied forces storming the beaches of Normandy in 1944 are stirring and significant in part because we know they are real. AI-generated images erode this shared understanding of reality. (Image credit: Universal History Archive via Getty Images)

• Copy link
• Facebook
• X
• Reddit
• Pinterest
• Flipboard

Share this article 28 Join the conversation Follow us Add us as a preferred source on Google Newsletter Subscribe to our newsletter

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is erasing the line between reality and illusion to the point where seeing is no longer believing. We need a social and legal framework that will separate real-world images from those generated by AI, as well as technical innovations, such as universal "AI watermarks," that will help viewers immediately distinguish real images from fake ones. Without such a framework in place, we risk losing the trust that real-world photography brings. And that would be a disaster for democracy.

On June 6, 1944, Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy. The photographs that emerged — grainy, blurred, chaotic — did more than document history; they shaped it. For millions who would never see the battlefield, those images became the war — visceral proof of sacrifice, courage and collective purpose. They transcended language, collapsing distance between the observer and the event.

The same can be said of other defining moments. The lone figure standing before tanks in Tiananmen Square. The falling man from the World Trade Center. The lifeless body of 3-year-old Alan Kurdi on a Turkish shore. These images are not merely records; they are cultural touchstones. They form a shared visual substrate upon which public understanding — and, often, political will — is built. They allow societies to coordinate emotion, judgment and action at scale.

You may like

• AI hallucinations work both ways, study shows — using chatbots can amplify and reinforce our own delusions
• How can we prevent AI models from cannibalizing themselves when human-generated data runs out? Scientists say they've found the answer.
• Reading AI summaries makes people more likely to buy something — despite alarming 60% hallucination rate

But what happens when that substrate erodes?

Advances in generative AI make it possible to create images that are not only realistic but emotionally compelling and contextually plausible. Unlike earlier forms of manipulation, which required skill and often left detectable traces, today's synthetic images can be produced rapidly, cheaply and at scale. They can depict events that never occurred and people who never existed, in scenes that nevertheless feel uncannily authentic. And AI image generators are getting better.

This shift introduces a profound epistemological problem. Historically, photographs have occupied a privileged position in our hierarchy of evidence. "Seeing is believing" is not just a cliché; it reflects a deep-seated cognitive shortcut that also transcends written and spoken language. While we have always known that images can be staged or edited, the default assumption is that photographs bear some causal connection to reality. Generative AI severs that link.

The risks are not abstract. In the context of war, synthetic images are being deployed as propaganda — fabricated atrocities attributed to an enemy, or staged victories designed to boost morale. For example, an image of an American radar system allegedly damaged by an Iranian drone strike that was widely circulated turned out to be fake., In domestic politics, they are being used to inflame racial tensions, fabricate protests, or depict public figures in situations that never occurred. For example, a fake image of a mug shot of Donald Trump has been widely disseminated.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Contact me with news and offers from other Future brandsReceive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsorsBy submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.

The iconic image of "Tank Man" standing against the might of the Communist Chinese regime captured the spirit of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protest. Images like these help form our shared understanding of history.

(Image credit: By Published by The Associated Press, originally photographed by Jeff Widener, Fair use,)

The speed and scale of digital dissemination via social media means these images shape perceptions before the images can be verified or discounted. For example, a picture of 250 poodle mixes in captivity posted by an animal charity was dismissed as being fake. Yet, it was real.

This example also highlights a more insidious consequence that may emerge in a second-order effect: Once the public becomes aware that images can be convincingly faked, genuine images lose their evidentiary force. This is the "liar's dividend" — the ability of bad actors to dismiss authentic visual evidence as fabricated. In such a world, even the most compelling photograph can be met with skepticism, its truth value perpetually contested.

Democratic societies depend on a shared baseline of facts and experiences. While disagreement over interpretation is inevitable — and often healthy — there must be some common ground regarding what has actually occurred. Images have long played a crucial role in establishing that. When their credibility collapses, so does the capacity for collective judgment.

What to read next

• AI 'mirages' mean tools used to analyze medical scans could fabricate their findings
• Anthropic collides with the Pentagon over AI safety — here's everything you need to know
• AI-written code can beat humans at biomedical analysis, some studies find. What does that mean for the field?

This is not a problem that can be solved through technology alone. While detection tools and forensic methods will continue to improve, they operate in an adversarial dynamic with generative systems. Each advance in detection is met with a corresponding advance in evasion. Moreover, technical solutions often struggle to scale across platforms and jurisdictions, and they require a level of public understanding that cannot be assumed.

While we have always known that images can be staged or edited, the default assumption is that photographs bear some causal connection to reality. Generative AI severs that link.

What is needed is a societal and legal response that reestablishes trust in visual media. There is a historical precedent. In the 20th century, the rise of photography prompted legal innovations around authorship and ownership. Copyright law did not prevent manipulation or misuse, but it created a framework for attributing images to identifiable creators, thus enabling accountability and recourse where necessary. Broadly speaking, this framework makes it possible to sue for defamation, libel, etc.

A similar approach could be adapted for the age of generative AI. One element would involve mandatory disclosure: AI-generated images would be required to be clearly labeled as such, both at the point of creation and in downstream distribution. This could be enforced through platform policies and, where necessary, regulatory mandates. This would mean even an inattentive viewer would immediately know whether an image were AI generated.

More importantly, there is a need for traceability. Advances in cryptographic watermarking and content provenance systems offer a pathway. By embedding metadata that records the origin and transformation history of an image, it becomes possible to verify whether a visual artifact is authentic, synthetic or altered. Crucially, such systems would need to be standardized, interoperable and resistant to tampering.

Related stories

• New AI image generator runs using 10 times fewer steps than today's best models — and it's coming to smartphones and laptops
• AI could use online images as a backdoor into your computer, alarming new study suggests
• AI 'mirages' mean tools used to analyze medical scans could fabricate their findings

Legal frameworks would need to support these technical measures. They could include liability regimes for the malicious use of synthetic media, as well as obligations for platforms to preserve and transmit provenance information. Just as importantly, there must be institutional actors, including journalists, courts and civil society organizations that are equipped to interpret and communicate this information to the public.

None of these measures will fully restore the epistemic status or "truth value" that photographs once held. The age of naive visual trust is over. But the goal is not to return to a bygone era; it is to construct new mechanisms of trust that are robust to the realities of digital manipulation.

The images of Normandy, Tiananmen Square and countless other moments continue to resonate because they are widely accepted as reflections of reality. Preserving that capacity — for images to anchor shared understanding — is not merely a technical challenge. It is a democratic imperative.

Opinion on Live Science gives you insight on the most important issues in science that affect you and the world around you today, written by experts and leading scientists in their field.

Akhil BhardwajAssociate Professor of Strategy and Organization at the University of Bath

Akhil Bhardwaj is an Associate Professor of Strategy and Organization at the University of Bath, UK. He studies extreme events, which range from organizational disasters to radical innovation. Akhil is interested in the epistemological problem of understanding the underlying dynamics that lead up to these events. He also studies how thinking can be improved as well as the implications of AI adoption in the context of strategic management, entrepreneurship, and high-risk systems. His work is philosophically grounded in pragmatism. Prior to joining academia, Akhil has worked as an engineer and manager at CAT., Inc and consulted as a SOX compliance analyst in the U.S.

View More

You must confirm your public display name before commenting

Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.

Logout Read more Artificial Intelligence AI hallucinations work both ways, study shows — using chatbots can amplify and reinforce our own delusions Artificial Intelligence How can we prevent AI models from cannibalizing themselves when human-generated data runs out? Scientists say they've found the answer. Artificial Intelligence Reading AI summaries makes people more likely to buy something — despite alarming 60% hallucination rate Artificial Intelligence Anthropic collides with the Pentagon over AI safety — here's everything you need to know Health AI-written code can beat humans at biomedical analysis, some studies find. What does that mean for the field? Artificial Intelligence 'We're the best servants anyone could dream of!': AI superintelligence has no need to enslave humans because we're already bowing to it Latest in Artificial Intelligence Artificial Intelligence OpenAI's internal AI model just solved an 80-year-old math problem ‪—‬ and mathematicians verified it Artificial Intelligence How can we prevent AI models from cannibalizing themselves when human-generated data runs out? Scientists say they've found the answer. Artificial Intelligence Can AI really simulate human thinking? Research casts doubt on an influential study, suggesting an advanced model was just really good at memorizing patterns. Artificial Intelligence AI chatbots are turbocharging violence against women and girls: We urgently need to regulate them Artificial Intelligence AI self-replication hacks 'no longer purely theoretical,' study finds —‬ ‪but experts say it's too soon to panic Artificial Intelligence 'Feuding tech bros' go head to head in legal showdown. But what does it mean for the future of AI? Latest in Opinion Electronic Engineering It's illegal to repair most of our devices. There's a surprising reason for that. Extraterrestrial Life 'I have no doubt that life is out there': Why radio astronomers are convinced alien contact is only a matter of time Reproductive Health Poll: What do you think of PMOS, the new name for PCOS? Artificial Intelligence AI chatbots are turbocharging violence against women and girls: We urgently need to regulate them Genetics DNA sequencing is rewriting our understanding of historic outbreaks, but it can't tell the whole story Archaeology 'We kept finding large, circular mass graves' in the Sahara predating the ancient Egyptians, archaeologists report