In a recent post on vali.now titled “Assess the Verac­i­ty of Pho­tos”, Rebec­ca John­son delves into the chal­lenges faced by even sea­soned jour­nal­ists, like those at The New York Times, when ver­i­fy­ing images amid a flood of syn­thet­ic media. The piece recounts how, fol­low­ing U.S. mil­i­tary strikes in Venezuela, Pres­i­dent Trump’s social media post of Nicolás Maduro in cus­tody sparked a wave of ques­tion­able pho­tos. It high­lights the steps pro­fes­sion­als take—from acknowl­edg­ing uncer­tain­ty to using detec­tion tools and crit­i­cal thinking—yet ulti­mate­ly under­scores how elu­sive cer­tain­ty can be. 

This story serves as a stark reminder of our col­lec­tive vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty in an era where AI blurs the lines between real­i­ty and fab­ri­ca­tion, prompt­ing us to ques­tion not just pho­tos but all dig­i­tal content.

As AI tools become ubiq­ui­tous, gen­er­at­ing hyper-realistic images, videos, and texts with ease, the cred­i­bil­i­ty of what we see and read online hangs by a thread. Draw­ing from phi­los­o­phy, soci­ol­o­gy, and anthro­pol­o­gy, we can explore why this mat­ters and how it reshapes our under­stand­ing of truth. Rather than div­ing into tech­ni­cal jar­gon, let’s con­sid­er the human ele­ments: our innate ten­den­cies, social struc­tures, and eter­nal quest for knowledge.

The Philosophical Dilemma: What Can We Truly Know?

From a philo­soph­i­cal stand­point, the rise of AI-generated con­tent revives ancient debates in epistemology—the study of knowl­edge and the nature of belief. Thinkers like René Descartes warned of decep­tive illu­sions, urg­ing us to doubt every­thing until proven oth­er­wise. In today’s dig­i­tal land­scape, every photo or arti­cle could be a mod­ern “evil demon,” trick­ing our sens­es as Descartes imag­ined. We once trust­ed pho­tographs as objec­tive win­dows to real­i­ty, but AI forces a rad­i­cal skep­ti­cism: Is this image a cap­tured moment or a con­struct­ed fantasy?

This isn’t just abstract mus­ing; it’s prac­ti­cal. Philoso­phers like David Hume argued that our beliefs stem from habit and expe­ri­ence, not pure rea­son. We’ve grown accus­tomed to believ­ing what we see because, his­tor­i­cal­ly, visu­als were hard to fake. AI dis­rupts this habit, mak­ing us ques­tion the foun­da­tions of our knowl­edge. If a deep­fake video of a world leader declar­ing war goes viral, how do we dis­cern truth with­out falling into par­a­lyz­ing doubt? The answer lies in prob­a­bilis­tic think­ing, as in the case of Vali.now post suggests—betting on like­li­hoods rather than absolutes. Yet, phi­los­o­phy reminds us that over-reliance on tools or experts can erode our own crit­i­cal fac­ul­ties, turn­ing us into pas­sive con­sumers of “truth” dic­tat­ed by algorithms.

Sociological Perspectives: Trust in a Fragmented Society

Soci­o­log­i­cal­ly, the cred­i­bil­i­ty cri­sis ampli­fied by AI reflects deep­er shifts in how soci­eties build and main­tain trust. Émile Durkheim, a foun­da­tion­al soci­ol­o­gist, viewed soci­ety as a web of shared beliefs and norms that fos­ter sol­i­dar­i­ty. In pre-digital times, insti­tu­tions like news­pa­pers or gov­ern­ments acted as gate­keep­ers, ver­i­fy­ing infor­ma­tion to uphold col­lec­tive trust. Now, social media democ­ra­tizes con­tent cre­ation, but at a cost: it frag­ments author­i­ty. Any­one can post a manip­u­lat­ed photo, and algo­rithms ampli­fy sen­sa­tion­al­ism over accu­ra­cy, cre­at­ing echo cham­bers where mis­in­for­ma­tion thrives.

Con­sid­er the social dynam­ics at play. Stud­ies in soci­ol­o­gy show that peo­ple are more like­ly to believe con­tent that aligns with their exist­ing views—a phe­nom­e­non known as con­fir­ma­tion bias. AI exac­er­bates this by tai­lor­ing fakes to exploit divi­sions, as seen in the flood of Maduro images men­tioned in the vali.now arti­cle. In polar­ized soci­eties, a fab­ri­cat­ed photo isn’t just a lie; it’s a tool for social con­trol, erod­ing com­mu­nal bonds. More­over, soci­ol­o­gy high­lights inequal­i­ty: not every­one has equal access to ver­i­fi­ca­tion resources. Mar­gin­al­ized groups, often tar­get­ed by dis­in­for­ma­tion, may suf­fer most, widen­ing social rifts. Ulti­mate­ly, rebuild­ing cred­i­bil­i­ty requires col­lec­tive action—fostering media lit­er­a­cy as a soci­etal norm, much like how com­mu­ni­ties his­tor­i­cal­ly relied on shared sto­ry­telling to nav­i­gate uncertainty.

Anthropological Insights: Humanity’s Evolving Relationship with Images

Anthro­po­log­i­cal­ly, our strug­gle with AI con­tent taps into fun­da­men­tal human traits shaped by evo­lu­tion and cul­ture. Humans are visu­al crea­tures; anthro­pol­o­gists note that our ances­tors used cave paint­ings and sym­bols to con­vey truths about the world, build­ing trust through shared nar­ra­tives. Images have long held a sacred sta­tus in cul­tures world­wide — from indige­nous totems to reli­gious icons — serv­ing as anchors for iden­ti­ty and memory.

Yet, this innate trust in visu­als makes us sus­cep­ti­ble to decep­tion. Evo­lu­tion­ary anthro­pol­o­gy sug­gests we devel­oped quick heuris­tics for sur­vival: if some­thing looks real, it prob­a­bly is. AI preys on this, mim­ic­k­ing real­i­ty so con­vinc­ing­ly that our brains’ pattern-recognition sys­tems fal­ter. Cross-culturally, anthro­pol­o­gists observe vary­ing atti­tudes toward truth; in some soci­eties, like those with oral tra­di­tions, ver­i­fi­ca­tion relies on com­mu­nal con­sen­sus rather than evi­dence. In our glob­al­ized, dig­i­tal cul­ture, how­ev­er, AI intro­duces a uni­ver­sal chal­lenge: how do we adapt? The vali.now post’s advice to “know what you don’t know” echoes anthro­po­log­i­cal wis­dom — humil­i­ty in the face of the unknown, a trait that has helped humans thrive through epochs of change.

More­over, anthro­pol­o­gy reveals that tech­nol­o­gy isn’t neu­tral; it reshapes rit­u­als of belief. Just as the inven­tion of writ­ing shift­ed oral soci­eties toward doc­u­ment­ed “facts,” AI is trans­form­ing our rit­u­als of ver­i­fi­ca­tion. We must cul­ti­vate new cul­tur­al prac­tices, like cross-checking sources or seek­ing diverse per­spec­tives, to pre­serve authen­tic­i­ty in an arti­fi­cial world.

Moving Forward: Embracing Informed Skepticism

In the age of AI, the cred­i­bil­i­ty of pho­tos and con­tent isn’t a tech­ni­cal puz­zle alone—it’s a pro­found­ly human one, inter­twined with our philo­soph­i­cal doubts, soci­o­log­i­cal struc­tures, and anthro­po­log­i­cal her­itage. As the vali.now post illus­trates, even experts hedge their bets, remind­ing us that absolute cer­tain­ty is rare. By draw­ing on these dis­ci­plines, we can fos­ter a health­i­er approach: ques­tion bold­ly, ver­i­fy col­lec­tive­ly, and act with aware­ness of the stakes.

Ulti­mate­ly, this era invites us to evolve—not into cyn­ics, but into thought­ful nav­i­ga­tors of truth. Next time you scroll past a strik­ing image or head­line, pause and reflect: What habits, social pres­sures, and cul­tur­al lens­es shape your belief? In doing so, we honor our shared human­i­ty amid the machines.

AI deepfakes deepfakes trust vali.now veracity of content