AI Fake Video: How to Check What You’re Seeing
About this check
If you have just seen a video, image, or screenshot and want to know whether it is real, begin with two separate questions: What does this media show, and is the claim attached to it supported? A finished check should not be just “real” or “fake.” It should identify the conclusion, show how certain it is, and point to the evidence behind it.
The manual method
Start by preserving the item as you received it. Write down the exact claim being made, including names, places, dates, and numbers. Separate the media from the caption or message that came with it. A genuine image can be paired with a false claim, and a true claim can be illustrated with unrelated media.
Next, inspect the media without treating one visual detail as proof. Note anything that appears unusual, but keep those observations as questions to investigate. For a screenshot, record the visible text exactly. For a video, note the spoken words, on-screen text, people, locations, and events that can be identified.
Then search for the claim and its distinctive wording. Look for reporting, official statements, primary documents, or earlier versions of the media. Compare the dates, locations, names, and surrounding context. Check whether the sources are actually discussing the same event rather than simply repeating the same caption.
For an image, compare versions you can find and check whether the surrounding story changes. For a video, compare the available description, transcript, or quoted statement with the event being claimed. Keep a record of what supports the claim, what contradicts it, and what remains unconfirmed.
Finally, give the result a clear boundary. You may have evidence that supports the claim, evidence that contradicts it, or evidence that does not settle it. Do not turn missing information into certainty. If the sources conflict, the original item is unavailable, or the media cannot be connected to the stated event, the honest result is uncertainty.
Where manual checking stops
Manual checking is useful when you can identify the claim and find sources that address it. It becomes inconclusive when the available material does not answer the specific question. A visual impression alone does not finish the check. Neither does a search result that repeats the same assertion without showing its basis.
That distinction matters for “AI fake video.” The question is not only whether a file looks unusual. It is also whether the claim attached to it can be checked against evidence. A responsible answer can be inconclusive instead of forcing a yes-or-no conclusion.
What VOM provides
VOM assesses an uploaded image as likely authentic, likely AI-generated, or unverifiable. It also reads the text inside a screenshot, so a forwarded image can be checked without retyping it.
For a checked claim, VOM provides a verdict, a confidence score, and any sources the check found. Its verdict can be true, false, or inconclusive. When the evidence cannot settle a claim, it reports that result rather than forcing a yes or no. VOM verifies claims using real-time web search and shows any sources the check found.
VOM also independently reviews an AI-generated image or video before approving it for publication. If its article-sharing pipeline’s AI image or video generation is blocked, fails, or is exhausted, the pipeline still publishes.
Beyond verification, VOM supports back-and-forth conversations for everyday questions, learning, brainstorming, writing, and planning. It can turn a written idea into a generated image, offers local, world, and trending feeds of circulating claims, and answers in the language being used across its eight supported languages.