Disinformation Detection Arms Race Model

disinformation-detection-race (E103)

← Back to pagePath: /knowledge-base/models/disinformation-detection-race/

Page Metadata

{
  "id": "disinformation-detection-race",
  "numericId": null,
  "path": "/knowledge-base/models/disinformation-detection-race/",
  "filePath": "knowledge-base/models/disinformation-detection-race.mdx",
  "title": "Disinformation Detection Arms Race Model",
  "quality": 55,
  "importance": 48,
  "contentFormat": "article",
  "tractability": null,
  "neglectedness": null,
  "uncertainty": null,
  "causalLevel": null,
  "lastUpdated": "2025-12-27",
  "llmSummary": "Models adversarial dynamics between AI generation and detection of synthetic content, projecting detection accuracy will fall from 65% (2024) to ~50% (near-random) by 2030 under medium adversarial pressure. Recommends prioritizing cryptographic provenance systems (C2PA) over content detection, with $200-400M investment having 30% chance of averting crisis.",
  "structuredSummary": null,
  "description": "This model analyzes the arms race between AI generation and detection. It projects detection falling to near-random (50%) by 2030 under medium adversarial pressure.",
  "ratings": {
    "focus": 8.5,
    "novelty": 4.5,
    "rigor": 6.5,
    "completeness": 7.5,
    "concreteness": 7,
    "actionability": 6
  },
  "category": "models",
  "subcategory": "domain-models",
  "clusters": [
    "ai-safety",
    "epistemics"
  ],
  "metrics": {
    "wordCount": 2710,
    "tableCount": 18,
    "diagramCount": 4,
    "internalLinks": 5,
    "externalLinks": 0,
    "footnoteCount": 0,
    "bulletRatio": 0.06,
    "sectionCount": 36,
    "hasOverview": true,
    "structuralScore": 12
  },
  "suggestedQuality": 80,
  "updateFrequency": 90,
  "evergreen": true,
  "wordCount": 2710,
  "unconvertedLinks": [],
  "unconvertedLinkCount": 0,
  "convertedLinkCount": 0,
  "backlinkCount": 1,
  "redundancy": {
    "maxSimilarity": 18,
    "similarPages": [
      {
        "id": "deepfakes-authentication-crisis",
        "title": "Deepfakes Authentication Crisis Model",
        "path": "/knowledge-base/models/deepfakes-authentication-crisis/",
        "similarity": 18
      },
      {
        "id": "epistemic-risks",
        "title": "AI Epistemic Cruxes",
        "path": "/knowledge-base/cruxes/epistemic-risks/",
        "similarity": 16
      },
      {
        "id": "authentication-collapse-timeline",
        "title": "Authentication Collapse Timeline Model",
        "path": "/knowledge-base/models/authentication-collapse-timeline/",
        "similarity": 16
      },
      {
        "id": "bioweapons-timeline",
        "title": "AI-Bioweapons Timeline Model",
        "path": "/knowledge-base/models/bioweapons-timeline/",
        "similarity": 16
      },
      {
        "id": "fraud-sophistication-curve",
        "title": "Fraud Sophistication Curve Model",
        "path": "/knowledge-base/models/fraud-sophistication-curve/",
        "similarity": 16
      }
    ]
  }
}

Entity Data

{
  "id": "disinformation-detection-race",
  "type": "model",
  "title": "Disinformation Detection Arms Race Model",
  "description": "This model analyzes the arms race between AI generation and detection. It projects detection falling to near-random (50%) by 2030 under medium adversarial pressure.",
  "tags": [
    "detection",
    "arms-race",
    "disinformation",
    "adversarial"
  ],
  "relatedEntries": [
    {
      "id": "disinformation",
      "type": "risk",
      "relationship": "related"
    }
  ],
  "sources": [],
  "lastUpdated": "2025-12",
  "customFields": [
    {
      "label": "Model Type",
      "value": "Comparative Analysis"
    },
    {
      "label": "Target Risk",
      "value": "Disinformation"
    }
  ]
}

Canonical Facts (0)

No facts for this entity

External Links

No external links

Backlinks (1)

id	title	type	relationship
consensus-manufacturing-dynamics	Consensus Manufacturing Dynamics Model	model	related

Frontmatter

{
  "title": "Disinformation Detection Arms Race Model",
  "description": "This model analyzes the arms race between AI generation and detection. It projects detection falling to near-random (50%) by 2030 under medium adversarial pressure.",
  "sidebar": {
    "order": 25
  },
  "quality": 55,
  "ratings": {
    "focus": 8.5,
    "novelty": 4.5,
    "rigor": 6.5,
    "completeness": 7.5,
    "concreteness": 7,
    "actionability": 6
  },
  "lastEdited": "2025-12-27",
  "importance": 48.5,
  "update_frequency": 90,
  "llmSummary": "Models adversarial dynamics between AI generation and detection of synthetic content, projecting detection accuracy will fall from 65% (2024) to ~50% (near-random) by 2030 under medium adversarial pressure. Recommends prioritizing cryptographic provenance systems (C2PA) over content detection, with $200-400M investment having 30% chance of averting crisis.",
  "todos": [
    "Complete 'Quantitative Analysis' section (8 placeholders)"
  ],
  "clusters": [
    "ai-safety",
    "epistemics"
  ],
  "subcategory": "domain-models",
  "entityType": "model"
}

Raw MDX Source

---
title: Disinformation Detection Arms Race Model
description: This model analyzes the arms race between AI generation and detection. It projects detection falling to near-random (50%) by 2030 under medium adversarial pressure.
sidebar:
  order: 25
quality: 55
ratings:
  focus: 8.5
  novelty: 4.5
  rigor: 6.5
  completeness: 7.5
  concreteness: 7
  actionability: 6
lastEdited: "2025-12-27"
importance: 48.5
update_frequency: 90
llmSummary: Models adversarial dynamics between AI generation and detection of synthetic content, projecting detection accuracy will fall from 65% (2024) to ~50% (near-random) by 2030 under medium adversarial pressure. Recommends prioritizing cryptographic provenance systems (C2PA) over content detection, with $200-400M investment having 30% chance of averting crisis.
todos:
  - Complete 'Quantitative Analysis' section (8 placeholders)
clusters:
  - ai-safety
  - epistemics
subcategory: domain-models
entityType: model
---
import {DataInfoBox, Mermaid, EntityLink} from '@components/wiki';

<DataInfoBox entityId="E103" ratings={frontmatter.ratings} />

## Overview

AI enables both the generation of increasingly convincing synthetic content and the detection of such content, creating an adversarial arms race with profound implications for information integrity. This model analyzes the competitive dynamics between generation and detection, projecting that generation holds structural advantages that make detection-based defenses increasingly unreliable. The central insight is that this is not a symmetric competition: generators can explicitly train against detectors, have access to detector architectures, and optimize specifically for indistinguishability, while detectors must generalize to unseen generation techniques and face a moving target.

Understanding these dynamics matters because detection failure would fundamentally change the information landscape. If content-based detection falls below practical utility (which this model projects by 2028-2030), societies cannot rely on technical systems to distinguish authentic from synthetic content. This creates what researchers call the "liar's dividend"—not only can synthetic content deceive, but authentic content becomes deniable ("that video of me is a deepfake"). The epistemic implications extend far beyond <EntityLink id="E102">disinformation</EntityLink> to affect legal proceedings, journalism, personal relationships, and institutional trust.

The model evaluates four scenarios for how this race might unfold: detection failure (55% probability), transition to provenance-based authentication (30%), detection parity (10%), and <EntityLink id="E439">AI alignment</EntityLink> solutions (5%). The most likely outcome—detection failure—argues strongly for accelerating alternative approaches, particularly cryptographic provenance systems like C2PA. Current detection accuracy trends from ~85-95% in 2018 to ~60-70% in 2024 suggest we have perhaps 3-5 years before content-based detection becomes practically useless, making this a critical window for building alternative infrastructure.

## Conceptual Framework

### Structural Asymmetry

| Actor | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|-------|-----------|---------------|
| **Generators** | Train directly against detectors | — |
| | Access to detector architectures | — |
| | Iterative testing capability | — |
| | Optimize for indistinguishability | — |
| **Detectors** | — | Must generalize to unseen techniques |
| | — | Moving target problem |
| | — | Lack access to latest generators |
| | — | False positive/negative tradeoff |

<Mermaid chart={`
flowchart TD
    GEN[Generation Advantages] --> ASYM[Asymmetric Advantage]
    DET[Detection Challenges] --> ASYM
    ASYM --> FAIL[Race Toward Detection Failure]

    style GEN fill:#ffddcc
    style DET fill:#cceeff
    style FAIL fill:#ff9999
`} />

This structural asymmetry—where generators hold persistent advantages over detectors—indicates the likely trajectory toward detection failure.

## The Adversarial Dynamic

### Asymmetric Optimization

<Mermaid chart={`
flowchart LR
    subgraph GeneratorTraining["Generator Training Loop"]
        GT1["Generate Content"] --> GT2["Test Against Detector"]
        GT2 --> GT3["Optimize for Evasion"]
        GT3 --> GT1
    end

    subgraph DetectorTraining["Detector Training Loop"]
        DT1["Train on Past Generators"] --> DT2["Deploy Detection"]
        DT2 --> DT3["New Generators Evade"]
        DT3 --> DT4["Collect New Data"]
        DT4 --> DT1
    end

    GeneratorTraining -->|"Always ahead"| DetectorTraining

    style GT3 fill:#90EE90
    style DT3 fill:#ff9999
`} />

The generator loss function explicitly incorporates detection evasion:

$$
\mathcal{L}_{\text{generator}} = \alpha \cdot \mathcal{L}_{\text{quality}} + \beta \cdot \mathcal{L}_{\text{evasion}}
$$

Where $\mathcal{L}_{\text{evasion}}$ directly penalizes detectable outputs. Detectors train on historical data, creating a structural lag.

### Information Asymmetry

| Actor | Knowledge Access | Advantage |
|-------|------------------|-----------|
| Generator | Detector architectures (often published) | High |
| Generator | Detector training data | High |
| Generator | Detector failure modes | High |
| Detector | Past generators | Medium |
| Detector | General generation principles | Medium |
| Detector | Specific future generators | None |

### The Perceptual Ceiling Problem

Human-level quality represents a ceiling for generation—once reached, further improvement provides diminishing returns. However, this ceiling is precisely where detection becomes hardest, as distinguishing AI from human becomes a needle-in-haystack problem.

### Base Rate Problem

$$
P(\text{AI} | \text{Flagged}) = \frac{P(\text{Flagged} | \text{AI}) \times P(\text{AI})}{P(\text{Flagged})}
$$

If 1% of content is AI-generated and detector has 95% accuracy:

| Metric | Value | Implication |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| True Positives | 0.95% of all content | Correctly flagged AI |
| False Positives | 4.95% of all content | Human content incorrectly flagged |
| Precision | ≈16% | 5:1 false positive ratio |
| Required accuracy for 50% precision | >99% | Likely impossible |

## Historical Trajectory

### Text Generation vs Detection

| Era | Years | Generation Quality | Detection Accuracy | Trend |
|-----|-------|-------------------|-------------------|-------|
| Early GPT | 2018-2019 | Detectable style inconsistencies | 85-95% | Detection winning |
| GPT-3 | 2020-2022 | Much more coherent, reduced signatures | 70-80% | Detection declining |
| GPT-4/Claude | 2023-2024 | Often indistinguishable, stylistically flexible | 60-70% | Generation winning |
| Current | 2025 | Context-aware, adversarially optimized | 55-65% | Detection failing |

### Image/Video Generation vs Detection

| Era | Years | Generation Quality | Detection Accuracy | Trend |
|-----|-------|-------------------|-------------------|-------|
| Early Deepfakes | 2017-2019 | Visible artifacts, lighting issues | 90-95% | Detection winning |
| GAN Improvements | 2020-2022 | Fewer visible artifacts | 75-85% | Detection declining |
| Diffusion Models | 2023-2024 | Photorealistic, high consistency | 60-75% | Generation winning |
| Current | 2025 | Real-time deepfakes, adversarial optimization | 55-70% | Detection failing |

### Audio Generation vs Detection

| Era | Years | Generation Quality | Detection Accuracy | Trend |
|-----|-------|-------------------|-------------------|-------|
| Early Voice Cloning | 2020-2021 | Robotic qualities | 85-90% | Detection winning |
| Advanced Synthesis | 2022-2024 | High-fidelity from seconds of audio | 70-80% | Detection declining |
| Current | 2025 | Real-time conversion, emotional matching | 60-70% | Generation winning |

## Quantitative Model

### Detection Success Rate Formula

$$
\text{DSR}(t) = \frac{D_{\text{capability}}(t)}{D_{\text{capability}}(t) + G_{\text{capability}}(t) \times (1 + \text{AP})}
$$

Where:
- $D_{\text{capability}}$ = Detector sophistication (improving ~20% per year)
- $G_{\text{capability}}$ = Generator sophistication (improving ~30% per year)
- $\text{AP}$ = Adversarial Pressure coefficient (degree of explicit evasion optimization)

### Capability Projections

<Mermaid chart={`
flowchart TD
    subgraph Timeline["Detection Success Rate Trajectory"]
        Y2020["2020: DSR = 75%<br/>Detection viable"]
        Y2024["2024: DSR = 65%<br/>Detection degrading"]
        Y2026["2026: DSR = 58%<br/>Detection struggling"]
        Y2028["2028: DSR = 52%<br/>Near random"]
        Y2030["2030: DSR = 48%<br/>Detection failed"]
    end

    Y2020 --> Y2024
    Y2024 --> Y2026
    Y2026 --> Y2028
    Y2028 --> Y2030

    style Y2030 fill:#ff6666
    style Y2028 fill:#ff9999
    style Y2026 fill:#ffcc99
`} />

### Scenario-Based Projections

| Year | Generator Capability | Detector Capability | Low AP (DSR) | Medium AP (DSR) | High AP (DSR) |
|------|---------------------|---------------------|--------------|-----------------|---------------|
| 2020 | 30 | 40 | 78% | 75% | 70% |
| 2022 | 50 | 55 | 73% | 70% | 64% |
| 2024 | 83 | 72 | 68% | 65% | 58% |
| 2026 | 138 | 92 | 62% | 58% | 50% |
| 2028 | 230 | 120 | 56% | 52% | 45% |
| 2030 | 383 | 156 | 52% | 48% | 40% |

**Interpretation:** Under medium adversarial pressure (baseline), detection falls to near-random (50%) by 2030. Under high adversarial pressure, this occurs by 2026-2027.

## Alternative Detection Strategies

### Strategy Comparison Matrix

| Strategy | Principle | Effectiveness | Scalability | Adoption Status | Key Weakness |
|----------|-----------|---------------|-------------|-----------------|--------------|
| Content Detection | Pattern recognition in synthetic content | Declining (65% → 50%) | High | Deployed | Arms race disadvantage |
| Provenance (C2PA) | Cryptographic authentication at creation | High if adopted | Medium-High | Early | Coordination challenge |
| Behavioral Analysis | Detect coordinated inauthentic behavior | Moderate | Medium | Partial | Sophisticated evasion |
| Watermarking | Embed detectable patterns in AI output | High for cooperative models | High | Research | Only cooperative models |
| Multi-Modal Cross-Check | Verify against independent sources | High for verifiable claims | Low | Manual | Labor-intensive |

### Provenance System Analysis

<Mermaid chart={`
flowchart TD
    subgraph Creation["Content Creation"]
        C1["Camera/Device Captures Content"]
        C2["Device Signs with Private Key"]
        C3["Metadata: location, time, device"]
    end

    subgraph Distribution["Content Distribution"]
        D1["Content Distributed with Signature"]
        D2["Any Modification Breaks Signature"]
        D3["Platforms Display Auth Status"]
    end

    subgraph Verification["Viewer Verification"]
        V1["Check Cryptographic Signature"]
        V2["Verify Chain of Custody"]
        V3["Trust Based on Authentication"]
    end

    C1 --> C2
    C2 --> C3
    C3 --> D1
    D1 --> D2
    D2 --> D3
    D3 --> V1
    V1 --> V2
    V2 --> V3

    style V3 fill:#90EE90
`} />

**Provenance Advantages:**
- Not subject to arms race dynamics—based on cryptography
- Scales to any quality of synthetic media
- Cannot be "evaded" by better generation

**Provenance Challenges:**

| Challenge | Impact | Mitigation |
|-----------|--------|------------|
| Adoption coordination | High | Industry consortium, regulation |
| Legacy content | Medium | Grandfather period, context labeling |
| Signature stripping | Medium | "Uncertain" vs "fake" distinction |
| Insider attacks | Low-Medium | Device security, audit trails |

**Adoption Timeline:**

| Milestone | Current Status | Projected Timeline |
|-----------|---------------|-------------------|
| Major tech company support | Adobe, Microsoft, Meta | Achieved |
| Device manufacturer integration | Limited | 2025-2027 |
| Platform deployment | Beginning | 2026-2028 |
| Critical mass adoption | Not started | 2027-2029 |

## Scenario Analysis

The following scenarios represent probability-weighted paths for the detection race outcome:

| Scenario | Probability | 2028 Detection Status | 2030 Detection Status | Primary Characteristics |
|----------|-------------|----------------------|----------------------|------------------------|
| A: Detection Failure | 55% | Less than 60% accuracy, high FP | ≈50% (random) | Arms race lost |
| B: Provenance Transition | 30% | Detection secondary | Provenance standard | Authentication shift |
| C: Detection Parity | 10% | 75-80% accuracy | 70-75% accuracy | Unexpected breakthrough |
| D: Alignment Solution | 5% | Reduced generation | Minimal threat | Governance success |

### Scenario A: Detection Failure (55% probability)

Content-based detection falls below practical utility by 2028-2030. Detection accuracy drops below 60%, and false positive rates make deployment impractical. Society must assume any content could be synthetic. The "liar's dividend" intensifies as authentic content becomes deniable. Epistemic crisis accelerates across journalism, legal systems, and personal relationships. Provenance systems become the only viable path but may not achieve adoption in time.

**Intervention implications:** Accelerate provenance adoption, strengthen behavioral detection, prepare society for "post-truth" environment, increase investigative journalism funding.

### Scenario B: Provenance Transition (30% probability)

C2PA or similar cryptographic authentication achieves critical mass adoption by 2028-2030. Authenticated content becomes the norm; unauthenticated content is treated as suspect. The detection race becomes less important as trust shifts to cryptographic verification. This requires successful coordination across device manufacturers, platforms, and regulators—historically difficult but not unprecedented.

**Intervention implications:** Focus resources on adoption acceleration, develop international standards, create public education campaigns on verification.

### Scenario C: Detection Parity (10% probability)

Detection improves faster than expected, perhaps through novel approaches not anticipated by current adversarial ML theory. Detectors remain ~75-80% accurate through 2030. Arms race stabilizes at high detection success. This would require either major detector breakthrough, generators hitting fundamental limits, or adversarial optimization remaining limited.

**Intervention implications:** Continue detection R&D funding, share detection techniques internationally, create public detection infrastructure.

### Scenario D: Alignment Solution (5% probability)

Advances in AI alignment make refusal to generate disinformation reliable. Major AI labs coordinate effectively on preventing misuse. Only rogue actors produce disinformation at limited scale. This requires robust AI safety techniques, international coordination, and effective control of open-source models—conditions currently unlikely but not impossible.

**Intervention implications:** Invest in AI safety research, support international coordination efforts, develop compute governance frameworks.

### Expected Detection Accuracy Calculation

$$
E[\text{Accuracy}_{2030}] = \sum_{s} P(s) \times A_s(2030)
$$

| Scenario | P(s) | Accuracy₂₀₃₀ | Contribution |
|----------|------|--------------|--------------|
| A: Detection Failure | 0.55 | 50% | 27.5% |
| B: Provenance Transition | 0.30 | 55% (secondary) | 16.5% |
| C: Detection Parity | 0.10 | 72% | 7.2% |
| D: Alignment Solution | 0.05 | 80% (low volume) | 4.0% |
| **Expected Value** | | | **55.2%** |

This expected detection accuracy of 55.2% by 2030 indicates that content-based detection will likely be near-random, reinforcing the urgency of alternative approaches.

## Expert Opinion Aggregation

Survey of expert predictions on detection race outcomes:

| Prediction | Expert Support | Key Arguments |
|------------|---------------|---------------|
| Detection will succeed (>90% accuracy by 2030) | 15% | Novel approaches, generator limits |
| Unclear, context-dependent | 35% | Domain-specific outcomes vary |
| Detection will fail (less than 60% accuracy by 2030) | 50% | Adversarial dynamics, theoretical limits |

**Median expert view:** Detection will not achieve high reliability by 2030.

**Most-cited factors:**
- Adversarial nature of the problem
- Fundamental theoretical limits (PAC learning bounds)
- Economic incentives favor evasion
- Historical trajectory discouraging

## Policy Implications

### If Detection Fails (Most Likely)

| Recommended Action | Priority | Timeline | Cost |
|-------------------|----------|----------|------|
| Mandate provenance systems (C2PA) legally | Critical | 2025-2026 | Medium |
| Invest in adoption infrastructure | Critical | 2025-2028 | High |
| Prepare society for "post-truth" environment | High | Ongoing | Medium |
| Strengthen behavioral detection | High | 2025-2027 | Medium |
| Increase investigative journalism funding | High | 2025-2027 | Medium |

### If Provenance Succeeds

| Recommended Action | Priority | Timeline | Cost |
|-------------------|----------|----------|------|
| Accelerate device manufacturer adoption | Critical | 2025-2027 | Medium |
| Platform requirements for displaying auth status | High | 2026-2028 | Low |
| Public education on checking provenance | High | 2026-2029 | Medium |
| International standards alignment | High | 2025-2028 | Low |

## Strategic Importance

### Magnitude Assessment

| Dimension | Assessment | Quantitative Estimate |
|-----------|------------|----------------------|
| **Severity if detection fails** | Very High - eliminates primary technical defense against synthetic disinformation | 9/10 severity rating |
| **Probability of detection failure** | High - structural advantages favor generators in adversarial optimization | 55% probability of near-random detection by 2030 |
| **Current detection accuracy** | Declining - dropped from 85-95% (2018) to 55-70% (2025) | 15-25 percentage point decline in 7 years |
| **Time to crisis threshold** | Near-term - under medium adversarial pressure | 3-5 years until detection becomes useless |
| **Affected domains** | Universal - text, images, audio, video all trending toward detection failure | All digital content types by 2030 |

### Resource Implications

| Intervention | Investment Needed | Expected Impact | Priority |
|--------------|-------------------|-----------------|----------|
| **Accelerate provenance adoption (C2PA)** | \$200-400 million over 3-5 years | Sidesteps detection entirely; 30% chance of averting crisis | Critical |
| **Platform provenance requirements** | \$50-100 million for integration | Creates adoption incentives; reduces unsigned content value | High |
| **Detection research (limited value)** | \$30-80 million annually | Buys 12-24 months at most; declining returns | Medium-Low |
| **Behavioral detection systems** | \$40-100 million | Targets coordinated inauthentic behavior vs content; 60-70% accuracy sustainable | Medium |
| **Cooperative watermarking standards** | \$20-50 million | Only works for compliant generators; does not address adversarial use | Low |
| **Post-truth adaptation preparation** | \$30-60 million for policy research | Prepares institutions for detection failure scenario | Medium |

### Key Cruxes

| Crux | If True | If False | Current Assessment |
|------|---------|----------|-------------------|
| **Detection can achieve breakthrough (greater than 80% accuracy sustainable)** | Arms race continues; detection remains viable | Detection fails by 2028-2030 as projected | 10% probability - no theoretical basis for breakthrough |
| **Provenance achieves critical mass before detection fails** | Detection failure irrelevant; authenticated content prevails | Detection failure creates epistemic crisis | 30% probability - requires unprecedented coordination |
| **Adversarial pressure remains low (generators don't optimize against detectors)** | Detection accuracy degrades slowly (60% by 2030) | Detection falls to random (50%) by 2028 | 40% probability of sustained low pressure |
| **Open-source generation models proliferate** | Adversarial pressure increases; accelerates detection failure | Controlled generation allows cooperative measures | 75% probability - trend already established |
| **Regulatory intervention mandates provenance** | Rapid adoption overcomes coordination failure | Voluntary adoption remains insufficient | 5-15% probability - requires unprecedented global action |

## Limitations

This model has significant limitations that affect confidence in its projections:

**Assumes sustained adversarial optimization.** The model's pessimistic projections for detection depend on generators actively optimizing against detectors. If economic incentives shift (e.g., through liability regimes or reputation effects), adversarial pressure might remain low, allowing detection to perform better than projected.

**Technology surprises not modeled.** Novel detection approaches could emerge that change the fundamental dynamics. The model extrapolates from current adversarial ML theory, which may not capture future innovations. Quantum computing, neuromorphic systems, or other paradigm shifts could affect either generation or detection in unexpected ways.

**Provenance adoption uncertainty high.** The 30% probability assigned to successful provenance transition is highly uncertain. Coordination across device manufacturers, platforms, and international bodies is historically difficult, but precedents exist (e.g., HTTPS adoption). The model cannot reliably predict coordination success.

**Domain-specific outcomes not differentiated.** Different domains (text, image, video, audio) may have different trajectories. Detection might fail for text while succeeding for video, or vice versa. The aggregated analysis obscures domain-specific dynamics that could matter for targeted interventions.

**Generation ceiling unclear.** The model assumes generation quality continues improving until human indistinguishability. If generators hit fundamental quality limits before reaching this ceiling, detection difficulty may plateau. Current evidence suggests the ceiling is reachable, but uncertainty remains.

**Geopolitical factors not modeled.** State actors may dramatically accelerate either generation (for offensive use) or detection (for defensive use). The model treats technological progress as primarily commercial/research-driven, but government investment could shift trajectories significantly.

## Related Models

- <EntityLink id="E104" /> - Impact assessment even if detection fails
- <EntityLink id="E97" /> - Specific to synthetic media
- <EntityLink id="E361" /> - Institutional trust erosion dynamics

## Sources

- Meta. "Deepfake Detection Challenge" results (2020)
- Stanford HAI. "Disinformation Machine" research (2024)
- C2PA. Content Provenance and Authenticity standards
- Academic literature on adversarial robustness
- Various AI detection tool evaluations (GPTZero, Originality.ai, etc.)