Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

The Generative AI Paradox: GenAI and the Erosion of Trust, the Corrosion of Information Verification, and the Demise of Truth

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read GenAI's main risk is not deepfakes but synthetic reality: coherent, machine-built environments that erode the verification practices institutions depend on.

desk verdict A well-organized position essay that names a real risk—synthetic reality—but overstates the 'demise of truth' as a demonstrated outcome rather than a testable hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.00306 v1 pith:X5GPU3OD submitted 2026-01-01 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

Emilio Ferrara This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC
keywords generativeAIsyntheticrealityepistemicsecurityinformationverificationmisinformationdeepfakestrusterosionprovenance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Generative AI's most consequential risk, this paper argues, is not isolated fake artifacts but synthetic reality: coherent, interactive, and personalized information environments in which content, identity, and social interaction are jointly manufactured and mutually reinforcing. The paper formalizes synthetic reality as a four-layer stack — content, identity, interaction, institutions — and contends that as fabrication costs collapse, the four heuristics that made institutional verification tractable (perceptual cues, documentation scarcity, human attention, and shared exposure for correction) fail at once. The consequence would be an epistemic tax: rising verification costs, contested evidence, and drift toward either credulity or blanket cynicism. In the limit, the paper's Generative AI Paradox holds: societies may rationally discount all digital evidence, raising the cost of truth for everyday life, commerce, and democratic institutions. The paper grounds these mechanisms in a case bank of 2023–2025 incidents, which it itself describes as an illustrative lower bound rather than a complete census. A sympathetic reader would care because this reframes the policy problem from detecting fakes to hardening the resilience of verification regimes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the synthetic reality stack: four layers — synthetic content (text, image, audio, video), synthetic identity (voice clones, face swaps, fabricated documents that manufacture 'credible witnesses'), synthetic interaction (adaptive chatbots and persuasion loops that turn artifacts into socially validated experience), and synthetic institutions (election, court, finance, and journalism workflows built on costly forgery). Seven qualitative shifts — cost collapse, scale and throughput, customization, micro-segmentation, automated social engineering, provenance gaps, and trust erosion with plausible deniability — explain why GenAI is a systems risk rather than 'more of th

What would settle it

A concrete check: track verification load and correction latency alongside measured growth in synthetic content across several high-salience events. If institutions that adopt out-of-band, process-based verification keep verification costs flat and still converge quickly on shared truth as fabrication becomes essentially free, the claim that the four heuristics fail at once — and with it the strong synthetic-reality thesis — would be undermined. The paper's own predicted observables (rising reliance on authenticated channels, longer correction latency, higher verification load, more strategic-

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that generative AI shifts the locus of harm from isolated fake artifacts to synthetic reality: a layered environment in which machine-generated content, fabricated identities, simulated interactions, and institution-level workflow exploitation are mutually reinforcing. Because high-conviction artifacts are cheap, scalable, and tailored to targets, the four heuristics that once made institutional verification tractable — perceptual cues, documentation scarcity, attention, and shared exposure for correction — fail at once. The result is systemic epistemic pressure: escalating verification load, contested evidence, plausible deniability for bad actors, and, in the l

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that institutional verification workflows were optimized for a world in which high-fidelity fabrication was costly, and that the four heuristics they rely on — perceptual cues, scarce documentation, human attention, and shared exposure for correction — fail simultaneously as GenAI costs collapse; if institutions adapt cheaply and quickly by shifting to process-based trust, the paper's strong 'erosion of institutions' conclusion weakens substantiall

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Verification shifts from artifact-based trust (believing what looks authentic) to process-based trust (believing what is generated and transmitted through authenticated, auditable procedures), especially in courts, elections, finance, and journalism.
  • Institutions will pay a measurable epistemic tax — rising verification load, longer correction latency, and more friction in routine trust — which the paper expects to show up as heavier reliance on authenticated channels and more strategic-denial claims in high-salience events.
  • No single fix suffices: provenance infrastructure improves confidence in authenticated media but cannot label all unverified content, so platform-level friction (rate-limiting, delayed virality, reduced amplification of unverified media) and public epistemic hygiene are necessary complements.
  • The research agenda moves from artifact authenticity to epistemic resilience, measured by authenticity coverage, correction latency, manipulation susceptibility, verification load, and attribution stability.
  • Because identities are reusable assets for abuse, responses to non-consensual synthetic imagery and impersonation must be persistent and platform-wide, not one-off takedowns.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the four-heuristic failure thesis is right, a testable prediction follows that the paper leaves implicit: the shift to process-based trust should be fastest in workflows that have already suffered high-conviction incidents (finance, election outreach) and slowest in diffuse low-stakes documentation, so the epistemic tax will be uneven before mitigations arrive.
  • A natural empirical check emerges from the paper's own framework: measure correction latency and verification load before and after a well-publicized synthetic event (a deepfake robocall, a fake-receipt surge) to see whether institutional defenses harden durably or only transiently.
  • The stack logic suggests adversaries will specialize by layer — some commoditize content, others build credible identities, others run the interaction layer — which implies defense-in-depth should be matched by cross-layer threat-intelligence sharing, a coordination problem the paper gestures at but does not develop.
  • If rational discounting of digital evidence sets in, the value of authenticated channels (official accounts, signed media, verifiable logs) rises relative to open-ended evidence; an unstated corollary is unequal access — people without such channels bear more verification burden, an equity cost the paper flags as a research priority but does not quantify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the most consequential risk of generative AI is not isolated fake artifacts but 'synthetic reality': coherent, interactive, and personalized information environments in which content, identity, and social interaction are jointly manufactured and mutually reinforcing, progressively eroding shared epistemic ground and institutional verification practices. It formalizes synthetic reality as a layered stack (content, identity, interaction, institutions), expands a taxonomy of GenAI harms, articulates seven qualitative shifts introduced by GenAI (cost collapse, scale, customization, micro-segmentation, synthetic interaction, detection limits/provenance gap, trust erosion), presents a case bank of 2023–2025 incidents, and proposes a mitigation stack and a research agenda centered on measuring epistemic security. The paper concludes with the Generative AI Paradox: as synthetic media becomes ubiquitous, societies may rationally discount digital evidence altogether.

Significance. If the systemic-erosion claim holds, the paper provides a valuable reframing of AI risk, moving from artifact authentication toward institutional resilience. The layered-stack model is a useful organizing device, and the case bank grounds the mechanisms in documented events. The proposed mitigation stack—provenance, platform governance, process redesign, public resilience—is practical and explicitly non-silver-bullet. The paper also offers candidate metrics for epistemic security, which is a constructive step. However, the central empirical claim that verification regimes will durably erode is not demonstrated; the paper itself concedes limitations in data and measurement. The strength of the paper is thus in generating a testable hypothesis and a research agenda rather than in establishing the 'demise of truth.'

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4 vs §5.3] The erosion premise rests on the claim that verification workflows rely on four heuristics (perceptual cues, documentation scarcity, attention, shared exposure) that fail as fabrication costs collapse. Yet §5.3 recommends exactly the process-based adaptations that would counteract such failure (out-of-band verification, authenticated channels, provenance-aware evidence standards). The manuscript does not present evidence on the speed, cost, or effectiveness of these adaptations. Without such evidence, the strong 'demise of truth' conclusion is underdetermined. Please reframe the erosion as a conditional risk or provide a model/evidence of adaptation costs and dynamics.
  2. [§4, §6.1] The case bank is illustrative but does not measure the outcomes central to the thesis: verification load, correction latency, trust erosion, or adaptation rates. The paper admits 'public documentation is uneven' (§4) and 'we cannot manage what we do not measure' (§6.1), which undercuts empirical support for the systemic-erosion claim. A concrete research design—e.g., longitudinal comparison of institutions with and without access to cheap synthetic media, measuring verification costs over time—would allow the erosion hypothesis to be tested against the adaptation hypothesis.
  3. [§7] The concluding 'observable pressures' are listed as expectations, but they are not operationalized with baselines, comparison groups, or data sources. As a research agenda this is acceptable, but as a basis for the abstract's 'demise of truth' claim it is insufficient. Please state explicitly that these are hypotheses, not findings, and specify the time horizon over which they could be detected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are typographical ligature artifacts, e.g., 'difficult' in §1 and §2.4. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'demise of truth' is stronger than the evidence presented. The text mostly supports 'erosion of shared epistemic ground'; the more dramatic framing in the title/abstract should be moderated or explicitly flagged as a hypothetical endpoint.
  3. [Table 1] The 'Refs' column does not always match the narrative. For instance, Case B cites [13,1,31] but the text also discusses [8]; Case E includes [6] but the text cites [32,22,25,24]. Please align the references with the specific claims in each case description.
  4. [§3.7, §6.1] The term 'epistemic tax' is used repeatedly but never formally defined. Given its centrality, please provide a concise operational definition (even a qualitative one) to guide measurement.
  5. [§7] The list of expected pressures lacks temporal and contextual qualifications. Specify, for instance, 'in high-stakes domains over the next 3–5 years' to make the predictions more falsifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a qualitative synthesis with no fitted parameters, equations, or self-citation-derived conclusions.

full rationale

This is an argumentative synthesis paper, not a derivation with equations or fitted parameters. The central claims—cost collapse, the layered synthetic reality stack, and erosion of institutional verification—are supported by a case bank of external reporting (FCC, Financial Times, SCMP, OWASP, NIST, etc.) and by qualitative reasoning, rather than by any step that reduces to its own input by construction. The paper does import its taxonomy from the author's earlier work [17] and cites several self-authored empirical studies [8,9,30,38] for illustrations of coordinated campaigns and synthetic political content; however, these citations provide scaffolding and examples, not the load-bearing proof of the institutional-erosion thesis. Section 2.4's four-heuristic premise is an explicit assumption about how verification workflows operate, and Section 7's 'we expect' list is a set of testable research hypotheses, not predictions forced by a fitted model. The stated limitations—'public documentation is uneven' (Section 4) and 'we cannot manage what we do not measure' (Section 6.1)—concede empirical uncertainty but do not indicate circularity. No step in the paper exhibits the specific reduction required to establish a circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No free parameters or fitted values appear in this conceptual paper. The argument rests on domain assumptions about GenAI capability, institutional verification practices, and belief formation; the most fragile is the assumption that societies will rationally discount digital evidence, which is the paradox conclusion rather than a demonstrated outcome. The three main new constructs ('synthetic reality,' 'epistemic tax,' 'epistemic security') are organizing metaphors without independent falsifiable handles.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption High-conviction artifacts (voice, face, video, documents) are now cheap to produce at scale and difficult for humans to distinguish from authentic ones.
    Invoked throughout Sections 1–3 as foundational; supported by cited reports but not measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption Institutional verification workflows were optimized for a world where such artifacts were costly to fabricate and therefore informative.
    Section 2.4 states institutional reliance on perceptual cues, documentation scarcity, attention, and shared exposure; no historical or empirical support is provided.
  • domain assumption Belief formation is substantially shaped by interactive conversation, feedback, and social reinforcement.
    Section 2.3 motivates synthetic interaction as more dangerous than static content; plausible but not evidenced in the paper.
  • domain assumption Detection classifiers and watermarking are imperfect in open ecosystems and will remain so under adversarial adaptation.
    Section 3.6 asserts detection limits and provenance gaps; relies on cited work but presented as near-certainty.
  • ad hoc to paper Societies may rationally discount digital evidence altogether as synthetic media becomes ubiquitous.
    This is the 'Generative AI Paradox' conclusion in Section 7; assumed as a rational equilibrium rather than derived or measured.
invented entities (3)
  • Synthetic reality (layered stack: content, identity, interaction, institutions)
    purpose: Organizing construct for GenAI risk; maps attack surfaces to mitigation layers.
    Introduced as a conceptual stack (Fig. 2); no operational definition, measurement, or falsifiable handle is provided.
  • 'Epistemic tax'
    purpose: Names the aggregate verification friction imposed on institutions and individuals.
    Used repeatedly (Sections 1.2, 3.7, 7) but never defined quantitatively; the proposed metric constructs in Section 6.1 are not instantiated.
  • 'Epistemic security'
    purpose: Goal state for the research agenda: sustaining shared reality under adversarial pressure.
    Introduced in Section 6; no indicators or benchmarks are provided beyond a list of candidate constructs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Generative AI Paradox: GenAI and the Erosion of Trust, the Corrosion of Information Verification, and the Demise of Truth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X5GPU3OD

@misc{pith2026260100306,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Generative AI Paradox: GenAI and the Erosion of Trust, the Corrosion of Information Verification, and the Demise of Truth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X5GPU3OD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.00306}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) now produces text, images, audio, and video that can be perceptually convincing at scale and at negligible marginal cost. While public debate often frames the associated harms as "deepfakes" or incremental extensions of misinformation and fraud, this view misses a broader socio-technical shift: GenAI enables synthetic realities; coherent, interactive, and potentially personalized information environments in which content, identity, and social interaction are jointly manufactured and mutually reinforcing. We argue that the most consequential risk is not merely the production of isolated synthetic artifacts, but the progressive erosion of shared epistemic ground and institutional verification practices as synthetic content, synthetic identity, and synthetic interaction become easy to generate and hard to audit. This paper (i) formalizes synthetic reality as a layered stack (content, identity, interaction, institutions), (ii) expands a taxonomy of GenAI harms spanning personal, economic, informational, and socio-technical risks, (iii) articulates the qualitative shifts introduced by GenAI (cost collapse, throughput, customization, micro-segmentation, provenance gaps, and trust erosion), and (iv) synthesizes recent risk realizations (2023-2025) into a compact case bank illustrating how these mechanisms manifest in fraud, elections, harassment, documentation, and supply-chain compromise. We then propose a mitigation stack that treats provenance infrastructure, platform governance, institutional workflow redesign, and public resilience as complementary rather than substitutable, and outline a research agenda focused on measuring epistemic security. We conclude with the Generative AI Paradox: as synthetic media becomes ubiquitous, societies may rationally discount digital evidence altogether.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00306 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Top Left) In January 2024, the r/StableDiffusion community on Reddit demonstrated a proof-of-concept workflow to synthetically generate personas and (Bottom Left) proofs of iden￾tity. (Top Right) GenAI can produce lifelike depictions of never-occurred events (MJv5 prompt: “president biden and supreme leader of iran shaking hands”). (Bottom Right) Subliminal mes￾sages in generated content (optical illusion reads OBE… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. , we therefore define synthetic reality as a layered stack (content, identity, interaction, institutions) that maps naturally onto distinct attack surfaces and defensive levers. Layer 4: Synthetic Institutions The Systemic Level Elections, Courts, Finance, Journalism (corrosion of verification workflows) Layer 3: Synthetic Interaction The Relational Level Chatbots, Social Engineering, Persuasion Loops (socially vali… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A Research Agenda for Epistemic Security. Addressing synthetic reality risks requires a shift from measuring artifact authenticity to measuring systemic resilience. The agenda rests on four pillars: (1) operational metrics, (2) interactive benchmarks, (3) adversarial robustness, and (4) institutional redesign, all grounded in an analysis of equity and differential harm. 6.2 Benchmarks for interactive manipulation Mo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    AI-generated voices in robocalls can deceive voters

    Associated Press. AI-generated voices in robocalls can deceive voters. The FCC just made them illegal. https://apnews.com/article/a8292b1371b3764916461f60660b93e6, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    X restores Taylor Swift searches after deepfake explicit images triggered temporary block

    Associated Press. X restores Taylor Swift searches after deepfake explicit images triggered temporary block. https://apnews.com/article/adec3135afb1c6e5363c4e5dea1b7a72, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    President Trump signs Take It Down Act, addressing nonconsensual deep- fakes

    Associated Press. President Trump signs Take It Down Act, addressing nonconsensual deep- fakes. What is it? https://apnews.com/article/741a6e525e81e5e3d8843aac20de8615, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Augenstein, M

    I. Augenstein, M. Bakker, T. Chakraborty, D. Corney, E. Ferrara, I. Gurevych, S. Hale, E. Hovy, H. Ji, I. Larraz, et al. Community moderation and the new epistemology of fact checking on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20067 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Augenstein, T

    I. Augenstein, T. Baldwin, M. Cha, T. Chakraborty, G. L. Ciampaglia, D. Corney, R. DiResta, E. Ferrara, S. Hale, A. Halevy, et al. Factuality challenges in the era of large language models and opportunities for fact-checking. Nature Machine Intelligence , 6(8):852–863, 2024. 14

    2024

  6. [6]

    Autio, R

    C. Autio, R. Schwartz, J. Dunietz, S. Jain, M. Stanley, E. Tabassi, P. Hall, and K. Roberts. Artificial intelligence risk management framework: Gen- erative artificial intelligence profile. https://www.nist.gov/publications/ artificial-intelligence-risk-management-framework-generative-artificial-intelligence , 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    State of California: Benefits and Risks of Generative Artificial Intelligence Report

    California Government Operations Agency. State of California: Benefits and Risks of Generative Artificial Intelligence Report. https://www.govops.ca.gov/wp-content/ uploads/sites/11/2023/11/GenAI-EO-1-Report_FINAL.pdf , Nov. 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Z. Chen, J. Ye, B. Tsai, E. Ferrara, and L. Luceri. Synthetic politics: Prevalence, spreaders, and emotional reception of ai-generated political images on x. In Proceedings of the 36th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media , pages 11–21, 2025

    2025

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Cinus, M

    F. Cinus, M. Minici, L. Luceri, and E. Ferrara. Exposing cross-platform coordinated inauthentic activity in the run-up to the 2024 us election. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 , pages 541–559, 2025

    2024

  2. [10]

    The TAKE IT DOWN Act: A Federal Law Prohibit- ing the Nonconsensual Publication of Intimate Images

    Congressional Research Service. The TAKE IT DOWN Act: A Federal Law Prohibit- ing the Nonconsensual Publication of Intimate Images. https://www.congress.gov/ crs-product/LSB11314, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    T. T. Eapen, D. J. Finkenstadt, J. Folk, and L. Venkataswamy. How generative ai can augment human creativity. https://hbr.org/2023/07/ how-generative-ai-can-augment-human-creativity , July 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Combating cyber violence against women and girls

    European Institute for Gender Equality. Combating cyber violence against women and girls. Report, European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), Nov. 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    DA 24-102: Robocall Enforcement (Public No- tice; cease-and-desist to Lingo Telecom re: AI-generated voice)

    Federal Communications Commission. DA 24-102: Robocall Enforcement (Public No- tice; cease-and-desist to Lingo Telecom re: AI-generated voice). https://docs.fcc.gov/ public/attachments/DA-24-102A1.pdf, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    K. K. Feng, N. Ritchie, P. Blumenthal, A. Parsons, and A. X. Zhang. Examining the impact of provenance-enabled media on trust and accuracy perceptions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 7(CSCW2):1–42, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    E. Ferrara. Social bot detection in the age of ChatGPT: Challenges and opportunities. First Monday , 28(6), 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    E. Ferrara. Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Sci, 6(1):3, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    E. Ferrara. Genai against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelli- gence and large language models. Journal of Computational Social Science , 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    E. Ferrara. Charting the landscape of nefarious uses of generative artificial intelligence for online election interference. First Monday , 30(6), 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Arup lost $25mn in hong kong deepfake video conference scam

    Financial Times. Arup lost $25mn in hong kong deepfake video conference scam. https: //www.ft.com/content/b977e8d4-664c-4ae4-8a8e-eb93bdf785ea , 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    ’Do not trust your eyes’: AI generates surge in expense fraud

    Financial Times. ’Do not trust your eyes’: AI generates surge in expense fraud. https: //www.ft.com/content/0849f8fe-2674-4eae-a134-587340829a58 , 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Fraudsters use ai to fake artwork authenticity and ownership

    Financial Times. Fraudsters use ai to fake artwork authenticity and ownership. https: //www.ft.com/content/fdfb5489-daa0-4e7e-97b7-4317514cd9f4 , 2025. 15

    2025

  14. [22]

    Pytorch model files can bypass pickle scanners via unexpected pickle extensions (cve-2025-1889)

    GitHub Advisory Database. Pytorch model files can bypass pickle scanners via unexpected pickle extensions (cve-2025-1889). https://github.com/advisories/ GHSA-769v-p64c-89pr , 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    LCQ9: Combat- ing frauds involving deepfake

    Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. LCQ9: Combat- ing frauds involving deepfake. https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202406/26/ P2024062600192p.htm, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    P. He, H. Xu, Y. Xing, H. Liu, M. Yamada, and J. Tang. Data poisoning for in-context learning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025 , 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Hubinger, C

    E. Hubinger, C. Denison, J. Mu, M. Lambert, M. Tong, M. MacDiarmid, T. Lanham, D. M. Ziegler, T. Maxwell, N. Cheng, et al. Sleeper agents: Training deceptive llms that persist through safety training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05566 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Expenses fraud: how to spot an ai-generated receipt

    ICAEW. Expenses fraud: how to spot an ai-generated receipt. https: //www.icaew.com/insights/viewpoints-on-the-news/2025/nov-2025/ expenses-fraud-how-to-spot-an-ai-generated-receipt , 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Luceri, T

    L. Luceri, T. V. Salkar, A. Balasubramanian, G. Pinto, C. Sun, and E. Ferrara. Coordinated inauthentic behavior on tiktok: Challenges and opportunities for detection in a video-first ecosystem. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , 2026

    2026

  20. [28]

    Mazurczyk, D

    W. Mazurczyk, D. Lee, and A. Vlachos. Disinformation 2.0 in the age of ai: A cybersecurity perspective. Communications of the ACM , 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Menczer, D

    F. Menczer, D. Crandall, Y.-Y. Ahn, and A. Kapadia. Addressing the harms of ai-generated inauthentic content. Nature Machine Intelligence , pages 1–2, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Minici, F

    M. Minici, F. Cinus, L. Luceri, and E. Ferrara. Uncovering coordinated cross-platform information operations: Threatening the integrity of the 2024 U.S. presidential election. First Monday , 29(11), 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    A political consultant faces charges and fines for biden deep- fake robocalls

    NPR. A political consultant faces charges and fines for biden deep- fake robocalls. https://www.npr.org/2024/05/23/nx-s1-4977582/ fcc-ai-deepfake-robocall-biden-new-hampshire-political-operative , 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Owasp gen ai incident & exploit round-up, jan–feb 2025 (nullifai malicious models on hugging face hub)

    OW ASP GenAI Security Project. Owasp gen ai incident & exploit round-up, jan–feb 2025 (nullifai malicious models on hugging face hub). https://genai.owasp.org/2025/03/06/ owasp-gen-ai-incident-exploit-round-up-jan-feb-2025/ , 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Ramp adds ai agents for invoice processing

    PYMNTS. Ramp adds ai agents for invoice processing. https://www.pymnts.com/news/artificial-intelligence/2025/ ramp-adds-ai-agents-invoice-coding-approval-payment-processing/ , 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Fake receipts 2.0: Why human audits fail against ai and how tech is fighting back

    SAP Concur. Fake receipts 2.0: Why human audits fail against ai and how tech is fighting back. https://www.concur.com/blog/article/ fake-receipts-20-why-human-audits-fail-against-ai-and-how-tech-is-fighting-back , 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Seymour, K

    M. Seymour, K. Riemer, L. Yuan, and A. R. Dennis. Beyond deep fakes. Communications of the ACM , 66(10):56–67, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Hong kong employee tricked into paying out hk$4 million after video call with deepfake ‘cfo’ of uk multinational firm

    South China Morning Post. Hong kong employee tricked into paying out hk$4 million after video call with deepfake ‘cfo’ of uk multinational firm. 16 https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3263151/ uk-multinational-arup-confirmed-victim-hk200-million-deepfake-...

    2024

  29. [37]

    GitHub’s Deepfake Porn Crackdown Still Isn’t Working

    WIRED. GitHub’s Deepfake Porn Crackdown Still Isn’t Working. https://www.wired. com/story/githubs-deepfake-porn-crackdown-still-isnt-working , 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    social proof

    J. Ye, L. Luceri, and E. Ferrara. Auditing political exposure bias: Algorithmic amplification on twitter/x during the 2024 us presidential election. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 2349–2362, 2025. 17 Case Categor...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.