AI-Generated Images Threaten Future of Documentary as People ‘Will Stop Believing Anything’: ‘Deep Fake Is the Crime, AI Is a Tool’

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked a profound debate across various industries, and documentary filmmaking is at the forefront of this discussion. As AI-generated images and media become increasingly sophisticated, concerns are mounting that their widespread use could fundamentally undermine the genre’s bedrock of truth and reality. This technological evolution presents a complex dilemma: is AI a revolutionary tool for enhanced storytelling, or does it pose an existential threat that could lead people to ‘stop believing anything’? The core distinction, as some experts argue, lies in understanding that ‘deep fake is the crime, AI is a tool’.

The Double-Edged Sword: AI as a Tool for Storytelling

AI’s capabilities extend beyond mere automation, offering filmmakers innovative ways to navigate sensitive subjects and enhance narrative elements. While the ethical implications are significant, there are demonstrable cases where AI has served as a critical enabler for documentary projects.

Enhancing Authenticity and Protecting Identities

One compelling example of AI’s constructive application comes from Oscar-nominated director David France. For his 2020 documentary “Welcome to Chechnya,” which chronicled the persecution of LGBTQIA+ individuals, France utilized early forms of AI (then referred to as machine learning) to digitally superimpose the faces of volunteer activists onto his subjects. This groundbreaking technique allowed the documentary to tell a crucial story while meticulously protecting the identities of those at severe risk. The technology preserved the emotional integrity of the original footage—showing real reactions of crying and laughing—while offering an essential layer of security. This innovative use even earned the team a technical Oscar.

France explicitly addressed the controversy surrounding this technique, stating, “While we were doing this, everybody was calling it deep fake. We kept saying: It’s not deep fake. Deep fake is the crime, AI is the tool.” He also employed AI in his later film, “Free Leonard Peltier,” to modify and rejuvenate the voice of the aging activist, whose recordings were illicitly obtained.

Experimentation and Narrative Blurring

British filmmaker Marc Isaacs, with his docufiction “Synthetic Sincerity,” explores AI’s potential in a more experimental vein. The film delves into the possibility of teaching AI characters authenticity, blending fact and fiction through manipulated images that emulate AI-generated sequences. Isaacs experimented with synthetic media generation software, observing the limitations and possibilities of AI characters. His work highlights that while AI can create realistic imagery, the depth of human emotion and narrative complexity still largely requires human collaboration.

The Erosion of Trust: A Critical Threat to Documentary Integrity

Despite AI’s utility, the ease with which it can generate convincing, yet false, content presents a formidable challenge to the integrity of documentary filmmaking and, by extension, public trust in media.

The Challenge to Archival Footage

For documentarians heavily reliant on archival material, such as Portuguese filmmaker Susana de Sousa Dias, the implications of AI are particularly profound. Dias, whose work often engages with historical images, warns that AI could make it “much easier to context” documentary images, raising the risk that “not only can spectators believe fake archival footage, but that people will stop believing anything.” This sentiment underscores a core fear: if the historical record itself can be easily fabricated or altered, the very foundation of objective truth in visual media is shaken. She notes that for many years, the incompleteness and low fidelity of older images were accepted, but AI seeks to “repair everything,” potentially erasing the meaningfulness of “gaps in material and memory.”

The Ease of Deception

Emmy-winning filmmaker and graphic designer Eugen Bräunig illustrates the scale of this threat by showcasing AI-generated clips, such as a convincing artificial 1990s news report created with tools like Sora. He points out that while creating fake videos was possible before, it demanded significant production money and time. Now, “it’s just too cheap and too fast” to generate highly realistic, yet entirely fabricated, content. This accessibility dramatically lowers the barrier to creating and disseminating misinformation, amplifying the existing crisis of trust in media. “Trust in media is at an all-time low,” Bräunig warns, emphasizing that this mistrust could easily extend to documentary filmmaking itself.

Navigating the Future: Towards Self-Regulation and Transparency

Recognizing the urgent need to address these challenges, many in the documentary community are advocating for proactive measures to maintain ethical standards and public confidence.

The Need for Guidelines

In the absence of formal regulations, self-regulation is emerging as a critical path forward. Eugen Bräunig, in collaboration with the Archival Producers Alliance, has worked to establish a set of guidelines for best practices when incorporating generative AI into archive-led filmmaking. He stresses that “in documentary, there is no organizing body that tells us how to do things… All we can do is self-regulate and impose certain standards on ourselves to hold ourselves accountable as storytellers, news-makers and image-makers.”

Transparency Through Cue Sheets

One of the most practical and immediate recommendations is for productions to implement detailed “cue sheets” that clearly list the AI technology used, along with how and when it was employed throughout the filmmaking process. This level of transparency would allow audiences and critics to understand the nature of the images they are consuming, fostering informed viewership and accountability. By openly disclosing the use of AI, filmmakers can proactively address potential questions and rebuild trust, rather than reacting to accusations of deception.

FAQ

What is the difference between AI and deepfake in documentary?

As articulated by filmmaker David France, AI is a broad tool encompassing various technologies, some of which can be used constructively in documentaries (e.g., to protect identities or restore audio). A “deepfake,” on the other hand, refers to the malicious or deceptive use of AI to create fabricated or manipulated media that appears authentic, often to mislead or harm. In essence, deepfake is the “crime” or unethical application, while AI is the underlying “tool.”

How can audiences identify AI-generated content in documentaries?

Currently, it can be very challenging for the average viewer to definitively identify AI-generated content, especially as the technology advances. This is why experts advocate for filmmakers to implement transparency measures, such as providing cue sheets that detail AI usage. Audiences can also develop a critical viewing habit, being aware of the potential for AI manipulation, and seeking information about a film’s production methods.

Are there regulations in place for AI use in filmmaking?

As of now, there is no comprehensive, globally recognized regulatory body or set of laws specifically governing AI use in documentary filmmaking. The industry is primarily relying on self-regulation and the development of ethical guidelines by organizations and filmmakers themselves. Initiatives like those from the Archival Producers Alliance aim to establish best practices in the absence of formal legislation.

Conclusion

The advent of AI-generated images presents a defining moment for documentary filmmaking. While AI offers unprecedented opportunities for creative expression, the protection of vulnerable subjects, and even the reconstruction of historical narratives, it simultaneously introduces profound challenges to the genre’s fundamental commitment to truth. The fear that AI-generated images threaten the future of documentary by eroding public trust, leading people to ‘stop believing anything’, is a legitimate concern. However, by embracing a clear distinction – recognizing that ‘deep fake is the crime, AI is a tool’ – and committing to robust ethical frameworks, self-regulation, and radical transparency, the documentary community can strive to harness AI’s potential while safeguarding its integrity. The ongoing dialogue and proactive measures taken by filmmakers and industry bodies will be crucial in shaping a future where documentaries continue to inform, enlighten, and inspire trust.