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.