Can You Trust What You See? Human and AI Detection of Synthetic Legal Evidence D
AI benchmark · Legal
What is Can You Trust What You See? Human and AI Detection of Synthetic Legal Evidence?
Visual evidence has long been treated as a reliable form of legal proof, but advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are undermining that assumption. This article asks how well humans and frontier multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can distinguish authentic evidentiary photographs from AI-generated counterparts in the object-centric scenarios typical of civil disputes. We built Synthetic Legal Evidence Detection (SLED-1400), a dataset of 200 authentic evidence images paired with 1,200 synthetic counterparts produced by six contemporary text-to-image generators across ten evidence categories. The same stimuli and response format were used in a controlled web experiment with 136 lay participants and in a standardized evaluation of four MLLMs (GPT-5.1, Gemini-3-Pro, Gemini-3-Flash, Qwen3-VL-235B). Human accuracy was 64.8% overall, and 48.5% and 51.0% on the two strongest generators (Gemini-3-Pro-Image and Flux-2-Max), indistinguishable from chance. MLLMs never misclassified an authentic image (100% specificity), but missed most synthetic outputs from the harder generators, with average MLLM detection at 5.9% on Gemini-3-Pro-Image outputs. Human and MLLM errors were largely uncorrelated, while the four MLLMs were strongly correlated with each other. Neither group is a reliable standalone authenticator. We argue that visual evidence in legal proceedings should be treated as inherently contestable, and that a workable procedural response must combine trained human review, MLLM screening, and provenance infrastructure such as C2PA Content Credentials.
Tier D
Long tail: little or no usage data yet.
How much stands behind a tier: usage, who backs it, a confirmed line from its own site or paper, and a clear read on X. High with three of the four, medium with two, low otherwise.
- 4 models scored
- no proper name (a paper title or description)
- in curated RL directories (1 pt)
How we got to tier D
- Adoption: 4 models scored; no proper name (a paper title or description). Tier D.
- Not yet read on X.
- In curated RL directories: 1 point, a floor of none.
- Not yet confirmed by a line from its own site or paper.
A clear view on X moves a tier one step up or down; most entries don't move. How tiers work.
Not on the map yet: no line from its own site or paper places it in a domain.
Next: browse all benchmarks. Entry from the RL Research daily scrape of public sources, 2026-10-11 snapshot.