Abstract
Abstract. This study examines the risks associated with relying solely on images for documenting new species records, rediscoveries, taxonomic descriptions, and distribution expansions. We highlight concerns regarding image authenticity, especially in cases where images may be altered, adulterated, or AI (artificial intelligence)-generated, potentially leading to inaccuracies in biodiversity documentation. To illustrate the evolving challenges, we conducted an experiment with 621 participants who assessed nine AI-generated images. Surprisingly, six were deemed authentic, while three raised doubts, highlighting the difficulty in discerning AI-generated content. Our main message emphasizes the critical role of trust in biodiversity documentation, particularly for taxonomy and conservation, and how eroded trust can hinder conservation efforts. Improved communication and collaboration between taxonomists and conservationists are needed, emphasizing scientific integrity. We urge a reevaluation of journal policies concerning data validation, especially in articles relying on images as primary evidence, to preserve the credibility of scientific research amidst technological advancements.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
