Some months ago I was distorted into a ranting AI caricature by an over-assertive authenticist, which I thought was quite funny at the time. Its creator has since used it again in a more spiteful context, but one bad apple does not necessarily spoil the barrel – unless it is left to rot, when it infects the rest. Recently it seems the rot has indeed spread, and I find myself joined by my friend Barrie Schwortz, although this time the creators seem to think the case for authenticity is bolstered rather than weakened by their vulgarity.
Barrie’s picture, in different versions, appears in podcasts such as The Parallax File, Optic Expedition, Mystery Decoded and the Hidden Record, which are clickbait compilations of random film clips, AI generated images and for all I know AI generated commentary as well. This sort of site doesn’t fool anybody… well, actually, it obviously does, looking at the number of views and comments they engender, but surely nobody who really knows or cares. However, they are typified by bold headlines on the banner page; “Shocking!” “Unbelievable!” “Impossible!” “Not Human!”
So far, so unimpressive, but I post this to warn serious scholars not to get drawn into the same iconographic culture. The authenticist view is tarnished rather than enhanced by YouTube banners like these, even though the lower two are from genuinely scholarly sources.
AI seems to dominate popular culture at the moment, and it certainly has its place, but it has to be held on a very tight leash. The moment you loosen your grip your get something like this:
The upper photo is from a photoshoot in front of the British Museum. The lower is derived from a similar photo, but in black and white, so AI has coloured the suits as it saw fit, given Professor Edward Hall (left) a full head of hair and ginger beard, and Robert Hedges (right) a third hand clutching his waistband. Including this kind of thing in a work purporting to be a serious study of the Shroud (‘The Shroud of Turin: A Forensic Summary of the Evidence,’ by Otangelo Grasso) weakens its credibility. Firstly it suggests that the author was not completely in control of his AI assistance, and secondly it encourages speculation as to how much of the rest of the book is equally dubiously arrived at. A claim at the beginning of the book – “every claim has been verified every reference checked” – carries a lot of responsibility.
I certainly agree that AI is worrying with the images that are now being portrayed, as per yours and Barrie’s.
Also the abundance of videos coming out which feature ridiculous statements and content. I have watched a few and they usually string a lot of irrelevant images together with dubious narratives. Dna being one of the usual contenders.
Barrie would have been horrified as you must be.
So what’s with the ginger beard?
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on the book.
You refer to the statement in the introduction that “every claim has been verified; every reference checked.” That sentence appears in the section where I explicitly disclose the use of artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of The Shroud of Turin: A Forensic Summary of the Evidence. The intention of that paragraph was simple transparency. AI was used as a research assistant – for drafting support, cross-referencing, organization of material, and locating sources – but the arguments, interpretations, and responsibility for accuracy remain mine.
Writing a synthesis that spans history, archaeology, textile studies, forensic medicine, and physics inevitably involves a large body of literature and many competing interpretations. Verifying a manuscript of this scope is therefore a substantial task. During the preparation of this book I devoted extended periods to line-by-line verification, reviewing claims and references with structured review prompts and consulting multiple AI systems in parallel. Used carefully, these tools can be extremely helpful: they allow rapid cross-checking, comparison of interpretations, and identification of relevant sources that might otherwise be overlooked.
At the same time, AI does not replace critical judgment. Most systems are trained on broadly overlapping bodies of published material, which means they often reflect the same scholarly debates and disagreements present in the literature itself. In historical questions – such as the possible historical route of the Shroud – sources frequently contradict one another, and scholars differ in how the evidence should be interpreted. In such cases, verification involves weighing competing claims rather than confirming a single settled conclusion.
For that reason, I see AI not as an authority but as a useful research partner – a tool that can accelerate exploration of the literature and highlight connections between disciplines, while the final responsibility for evaluation and interpretation remains with the author.
The aim of the book is to synthesize and present the existing body of research – from textile specialists, forensic pathologists, physicists, historians, and members of the STURP investigation – in a coherent narrative that allows readers to see how the different lines of evidence relate to one another.
Researchers who have devoted decades specifically to Shroud studies naturally possess deep familiarity with the literature and may detect nuances or emerging debates more quickly than others. That experience is valuable, and careful criticism from specialists is always welcome. At the same time, scholarly discussion ultimately progresses through engagement with the evidence and sources themselves. For that reason, the most constructive form of critique is to address specific claims or interpretations so they can be examined, clarified, or corrected if necessary.
My goal with this book was to assemble the available forensic, historical, and scientific evidence concerning the Shroud in a transparent and accessible way. If particular claims or references require refinement, I would welcome the opportunity to improve them in future editions. Serious discussion of the evidence benefits everyone interested in the subject.