Yeah, uh, no.

It might avoid free eye detection (still doesn't, AI content is still incredibly easy to spot), but FORENSIC analysis is a bit more thorough than that.

Though I really love these kinds of comments. I at least used to work in the field some 15 years ago, so I have some awareness of what's going on. Meanwhile the group of people here who saw flashy AI demos and two-three episodes of CSI think they know best.

For example, here's a fun fact: camera sensor pixels aren't equal. Even on the same sensor, there's a subtle level of difference in sensitivity between pixels, pixel blocks, and so on. The built in ISP also has its own unique signature. Hell, there's even a unique signature in the variations of the variance between key frames! All of which can be extracted - much like a hash - but would take immense computational power (we're talking quantum computing levels, since it IS essentially reversing a hash or cryptographic key) to properly break.

This kind of fingerprinting alone could verify if a video was tampered with nor not. There's been whitepapers about this kind of verification since at least 2012. Yet I bet none of you who oh so confidently downvote, knew about it.

"trust me bro"

Ask a forensic analyst? I am not one so my knowledge of it is cursory at best.

However recent hardware now includes hardware level attestation in the image files that cannot be reproduced, so validity of video and photo evidence can NOW be established easily. If the signature is there, easy, the video wasn't manipulated. If it is missing, the evidence is no longer attested, therefore questionable.