Crime Weekly - S3 Ep280: Crime Weekly News: A.I. Generated True-Crime Controversy

Episode Date: March 5, 2025

Recently, Youtube channels like "True Crime Case Files" have garnered millions of views by presenting entirely fictional stories as real events, utilizing tools such as ChatGPT for scripting and AI-generated imagery for visuals. Is any of this ethical? And do people really want it? We're coming to CrimeCon Denver! Use our code CRIMEWEEKLY for 10% off your tickets! https://www.crimecon.com/CC25 Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

Lowe's knows you want the best for dad. This Father's Day, help him take on any project with big deals on DEWALT. Right now, get a free XR 8 amp hour battery when you buy select DEWALT tools. That's not all, get up to two free select tools when you buy a select DEWALT 20 volt max battery kit. Maximum initial battery voltage measured without a workload is 20 volts. Nominal voltage is 18. Hey, everyone. Welcome back to Crime Weekly News. I'm Derek Levasseur.

And I'm Stephanie Harlow. And we're going to be covering something tonight that I think is going to have a lot of strong opinions on it. I know we have some opinions. We were discussing it before we hit record because this is something new. You know, we're talking about science and technology right now in the Bear Brook murders case that we're covering, and it doesn't necessarily involve this, but another factor that is currently getting immersed and kind of ingrained into criminal investigations is artificial intelligence, right? AI. And there's a lot of mixed feelings about AI, but this new article that we're going to be talking about today covers a YouTuber who is currently incorporating AI to create true crime genre. So there's a recent development in true crime that involves the use of artificial intelligence to create entirely fabricated crime stories that have generated significant online attention. A YouTube channel named True Crime Case Files amassed millions of

views by presenting AI-generated narratives as genuine crime documentaries. So I'm going to let Stephanie tell you more about it, but I can already tell, I can feel you guys in the comments right now. So we'll let Stephanie talk about it and then I can already tell, I can feel you guys in the comments right now. So we'll let Stephanie talk about it and then we'll give our opinions. Yeah, this is absolutely ridiculous. I'm so annoyed by this. I'm so annoyed by it. I'm so annoyed by it. So first of all, the way this, so what we're saying is there's AI being used to create true crime videos. And that's one thing that I'm still not okay with. They're making YouTube true crime videos that aren't even true. None of these things

happened, right? And basically the way that it kind of got figured out is people were writing to like news stations in these locations where these fake true crimes were taking place and being like, hey, this is absolutely crazy because these true crimes are unbelievable, right? It's like teachers killing students to hide affairs. And a lot of them are very kind of sexually based and very clickbaity and just dramatic. And one of these reporters kept getting all of these messages like, hey, why haven't you covered this? Why haven't you covered this? There is absolutely no mainstream media coverage of this.

It's absolutely ridiculous. And they were like, well, because this never happened. So 404 Media says that they discovered this because a resident of one of the towns where one of the supposed crimes took place started to investigate. And they were wondering like, why hasn't this been on the local news? Why is nobody talking about this? Well, because it never happened. And this article from Gizmodo says, quote, the plots were disturbing, often hypersexual. They described parents selling teenagers into sex slavery with a sheriff and teachers committing murders to hide affairs with students. The video thumbnails were perverse

with clickbaity phrasing in big blocky text. So for instance, one of these titles was sheriff murdered after affair with his secretary got exposed. And that has 30,000 views. And then One of these titles was Sheriff Murdered After Affair With His Secretary Got Exposed. And that has 30,000 views. And then there's another one, Wife's Secret Affair With The Neighbor's Teenage Daughter Ends In Grizzly Murder. And then we have Coach Gives Cheerleader HIV After Secret Affair Leading To Pregnancy. And they said each one was made with AI and the crimes described did not happen. Even more remarkable, the 404's Henry Larson was actually able to track down the person responsible for these videos and interview him. And this creator refers to himself as Paul. And the guy, I would assume it's a guy, tries to dismiss the questionable nature of his deceptive

slop by insisting that true crime is a genre of entertainment masquerading as news and that his quote unquote films were sort of performance art designed to make people think about the nature of true crime stories. And this article says, quote, I suppose it's a clever retort if it weren't such obvious trolling. Paul is not the only underemployed 20-something to think that he's discovered some profound revelation about a popular if-try entertainment genre that no one else has ever thought of before. But of course, Paul sees nothing exploitative in deceptively replicating the exact same problem he sees in the true crime genre and doing so for profits. He says, if people don't understand it, that says a lot about human nature and their own natures, end quote. This is dumb because it's one thing. Yes, if you want to make videos that are telling crime stories, but they're fictional, you can't call it true crime, my dude.

It's not true. There was nothing. And I guess YouTube has taken down Paul's channel as well as many others that he was kind of running. But there's nothing on his channel that would say like, hey, this is for entertainment purposes only, or this is fictional, or these aren't real. So people were watching these videos as they do with our videos and other true crime creators' videos and thinking they were real because it's true crime, Paul. Okay? So this is very disturbing. And I can't say like I'm surprised.

Similar to this article, they were like, oh, he's not the first guy who's ever tried to kind of sneak in and fill a space on the internet that he felt wasn't being sort of catered to. I'm not surprised, but I'm surprised that when confronted, he would be like, oh, what's the difference? What's the difference between watching true crime and then watching a fake true crime case, there's a huge difference. There's a huge difference, Paul. And I'm going to let you give your comments on this first. So some of you may be surprised by my response.

I don't think so, though. My take is I agree with what you just said, for sure. It's not true crime if it's not true. So that's number one. Now, it's a slippery slope because there's a lot of crime shows that are out there. There's a lot of crime novels that are fictional in nature, but it's very clear they're fictional, but people consume them and people enjoy them because they quote unquote entertain them. Right. But what I would say is you can't paint true crime with a broad brush. There are a lot of ethical concerns about true crime, and the consumers of it are very good at holding the creators of that true crime accountable.

Not the creators of the true crime, the creators of the true crime content. The creators of the content that covers the true crime cases that they're covering. and ultimately they hold those different podcasters, YouTubers accountable to make sure it's not distasteful, it's not disrespectful, all that above. And I will say that different true crime creators cover true crime for different reasons. Our take on true crime is it's historical in nature and so you can cover it as a learning tool where you can look at what happened, kind of analyze not only what the offenders did, but how the victims were taken advantage of and use that information to better equip yourself for future occurrences if you or someone you care about are unfortunately faced

with a similar situation. There's also a call to action element to what we're doing, where we have now seen true crime podcasts having an actual impact on the real life cases by using their platforms and their audiences to get public attention on it, to drive the people that are actually working these cases to do something about it by putting pressure on them and government officials in those communities. And then there's also people who watch what we do and come forward with new information that law enforcement otherwise wouldn't have. With this AI generated format, I think you're right. It has to be clearly labeled that this is fictitious in nature. It's not real. It has to be stapled and planted and painted all over it.

But why didn't he do that? Because he was capitalizing on real life tragedy. Why didn't he let people know this is for entertainment purposes only? These stories are not true. Why? Because nobody would watch. I think people would still watch. Maybe not the same group of people. I wouldn't do that. Why would you do that? It's not like you're watching a well-produced television show about true crime that has great acting. You're sitting there and listening to somebody tell a story about something. Yeah. Why would you watch it if it's not true? It wouldn't get the attention, no. That click Beatty headline, and like you said, it's hyper-sexualized, it's graphic in nature.

They're trying to pull on those cords that they know people are going to consume because it sounds so horrific. We're both realists here and we understand that not everyone is consuming true crime content for the right reasons. Right. It's just the reality of it. And there's no way to avoid that. And so are some people going to come and listen to us or others because there's some sick, perverse reason for it? Yeah, of course. I think that's the minority, honestly. It's absolutely the minority. And this guy is definitely trying to capitalize on that audience and other audiences.

And then you have the normal true crime consumer who will come here, see this salacious headline or see this really horrific story and think, oh my God, there's no way this is true. I have to click on it. Come to find out it's not true. But they don't figure that out after they watch, which is why you've got so many people emailing this one reporter being like, hey, why haven't you guys covered this? This is absolutely outlandish. This case needs more coverage. The fact of the matter is if you want to watch something that's true crime, that's for entertainment, that's not based from reality, you'd watch something like True Detective. There's a bunch of seasons of True Detective. They're amazing, well-produced, well-acted. You've got the suspense, you've got everything,

and you go in knowing this is not true. Correct. But to use the label of true crime, which is, it's false advertising, number one, and it's also, I think, predatory. Yeah. And it's offensive to people, family members of true crime victims, people who are true victims of a crime. It's horrendous. And honestly, I think Paul should go to jail for this. Oh, gee. Why do you always have to go from one extreme to the other? Because it's horrible. I'm so sick of it. I don't know about jail.

You can't even- I don't know about jail for making a fake story and not labeling it properly. He should have a hefty fine. A hefty fine. I'm so disgusted by it, honestly. I just, and I'm not even being cautious of this for any of the reasons. I know not everyone's going to agree in the comments. And let me get ahead of you right now where you're going to say, oh, you guys are hypocrites.

What's the difference between covering a fake? Why would anybody say that? There's a huge difference. Anybody who says what's the difference between covering a fake case and a real case? They're trolls like Paul or they're ignorant and honestly have no business consuming any kind of content. They need mental health help. So what I would say is here's our look at it. And just to kind of be repetitive for a second, we're covering this content for a different

reason. First off, it's something that I've been doing since I was 20 years old. I feel like I have an insight where Stephanie has a great way of telling these stories way better than me. And she's able to pass that story along to you. And then I'm able to give my input as a former detective so that you're leaving this case. And we kind of have the, it's conversational. It's like, we're friends. You're leaving our episodes, feeling more informed and feeling like maybe there's something you can do to help going forward. That's our goal. You can clearly see what Paul's goal was here. And it's not to educate. It's not to inform. It's to make money. And I have zero issue with that. As Stephanie said, my issue is with the false advertising,

the false marketing, trying to capitalize on a genre that you see is doing extremely well and presenting yourself as something you are not. And then hiding behind the disguise of, oh, I'm doing this to show how awful the true crime genre is because it shouldn't matter whether it's real or not. And people shouldn't care whether the murder is real or not if they want to consume it. Of course, they're going to care because many, if not most people, come and listen to these podcasts

because they want to hear about these stories, because they want to hear about these people who are affected by it. And hopefully on the off chance they can do something about it, get involved, whether that's just going to a certain geographical location and helping with the search or spreading information about a case that may help get more eyes on it or donating to a cause that may help raise funds for the science

and technology needed to solve a case. There are many reasons that people come to different podcasts and consume that content. And for most of them, it's not to be entertained. And the way this guy's painting, it's not even about the podcasters. He's more talking about you guys, basically saying you're the problem. You're consuming this material for the wrong reasons. And I'm going to prove it. Paul doesn't even believe his own bullshit, his own gaslighting. What happened is Paul got caught. And then he was like, what am I going to say? I can't just say I did it for the money. I have to give some moral, high ground reason and act like I'm Mr. Robot and this was my plan the whole time. Get the hell out of here, Paul. And what's even worse, Paul, what's even worse is if you wanted to be

a creative writer and come up with some great stories and then tell them and be very honest about what they were like, there's stories like that on like Reddit and No Sleep and stuff where it's all like fabricated and you know that going in, but they're well written and they're creative and you're like, oh, this is cool. You used AI, you lazy loser. You used AI. You couldn't even write the stories yourself, you lazy loser.

Okay? He's the worst. And like I said, he wanted to make money. That's all he wanted to do. And then he got caught. And he's like, oh, I better come up with some like, you know, die on this hill is what you're doing. You're gaslighting everybody. You're dying on this hill.

Instead of just being like, yeah, man, I just want to make a quick buck. I messed up. My bad. I feel bad. He's like, hmm, there's actually a moralistic reason why I did this. Even in the article, it said that originally he had put in there like AI generated and it wasn't doing as well. I wonder why. So he removed the part that said AI generated and then that's when the view started skyrocketing.

But, yeah, I mean, listen, again, just to reiterate, because I don't, I personally, I know you might feel differently. I don't want to come off like a hypocrite. I, as you know, I wrote a screenplay. It's a, it's a fictional screenplay, true crime screenplay that I'm hoping to. Yeah, but you didn't use AI to write it. I did not use AI, but it's fictional. It doesn't matter. It's fictional and it's good. I've read it. It's good. It's good writing. And obviously there's novels, not true crime novels, but you know, fictional novels based on different crimes, you know, mystery investigative type books. That's all good. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's, it's fine. You, you do acting, you do the, you're more, we'll just say horror, not really. Right. So it's horror. There's nothing wrong with those creative outlets, but be, be transparent in what you're doing., but be transparent in what you're doing.

Be transparent in what you're doing is what we're saying. But overall- Don't be a lazy loser like Paul. Now, I will say this. If Paul was using his talents in AI generation to find ways to help solve cases in true crime and then highlighting them on YouTube, I'm all for it. If there's a person who comes out who's able to use AI to help solve real cases, slap true all for it. If there's a person who comes out, who's able to use AI to help solve real cases, slap true crime on it. Let's go. He doesn't have any talents or he wouldn't be using AI and using the label of true crime to get any clicks. That's, that's the end of story. Like that's, that's it right there. You don't need to use AI if you have actual talents

and actual writing skills. The fact of the matter is people want to hear real stories from real people. They don't want to hear fake stories from AI, Paul. Okay. Yeah, Paul, even though it's not your real name. Because they could just go on ChatGPT and talk to their ChatGPT and the ChatGPT can do that for them, can tell them bedtime stories all night. We don't need you, Paul. We don't need you. Well, I am looking forward to hearing the comments on this one. Where do you fall on it? Because although Paul's definitely just kind of skating around the actual question because he knows he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, what do you think about it? What do you think about someone who says, hey, what's the difference?

In fact, I would argue that making fictional true crime is better than real true crime because we're not highlighting the tragedies of actual people. What do you say to that argument? What do you think is the line of where we can talk about true crime and it not come off as being opportunistic? And so I'm interested to hear your views on that, your views on Paul. Where's your threshold? Where do you fall on this question? Because it is something that's going to become more and more prominent as time progresses with the evolution of AI. You're not really going to be able to tell the difference in the future until someone

starts to vet it. Dude, it's the worst. Are you like scrolling through TikTok and then all of a sudden you see Keanu Reeves and he's saying something super deep and you're like, oh, Keanu Reeves, who knew? But within like a couple seconds, you realize like his mouth is not moving with the words it's not him and you can tell it's like this robotic keanu reeves voice which keanu reeves already does kind of sound robotic in general yeah i love keanu too but you know he's not a great actor like in general he's a great like neo but he he doesn't have like huge range great person though i love him but they have him with have him with Denzel Washington too. I can always tell with Denzel. Oh, there's a ton

of them. Because he's my favorite actor. So I know like, that's not the way Denzel would say that. Like that's not his tone, but it's offensive to like the real people. Like even if they're saying something good or enlightening or uplifting, those are not their words. You're putting a picture of them and putting like a video of them and putting these words and attributing it to them when they haven't said that. It's very weird and dystopian and I don't like it. It's offensive, Derek, because I spend a lot of time researching and writing these cases, as you know, because I'm always stressed. And you're like, you call me and you're like, what are you doing? And I'm like,

working. That's you 24-7 regardless of and you're like, you call me and you're like, what are you doing? And I'm like, working. That's you 24-7 regardless of whether you're writing. Yeah, exactly. Because I'm always like in that place where I'm like, I know I have a limited amount of time to do the research and to write and I want to do it as well as I can. So it's like to have somebody like Paul stroll in here and be like, I actually am like putting myself on a pedestal and I'm better than you people. Like you're not better than anybody, man.

You got caught doing something stupid and then you tried to make yourself sound like the good guy and everybody else who's doing it the right way for the right reason sound like the bad guys. And you could just go someplace with that. No, you make a really valid point and it's something where we're not there yet, but there will come a time where AI can probably generate our images, right? And create a script and all we have to do is hit play. And basically you would see us narrating these stories. I would never do that. Would you? It brings me back to a really simple premise. Just because you can do it, it doesn't mean you should. And there's no way AI would be able to convey the respect and empathy and care for these victims and their families the way a human would. And if we're going to cover these cases, they deserve for us to give our actual

attention and spend the time sitting in front of these cameras, actually discussing their cases with the care they deserve. Even though it would be easier to do AI, it doesn't make it right. And that's where I draw the line. There is a struggle. It is not easy to do these podcasts, as you just said, for different reasons, physically, mentally, emotionally, it takes a toll on you. But that's the least you can do because everything that we endure is nothing compared to what the people in these stories have endured. So to take the easy way out just because it's more economical and you can generate more content and therefore make more money, that's not what this is about.

And that's where we have to stop it in its tracks and say, okay, yeah, it's possible from a business perspective, but it's not right. It's not right. It not right it's the easy like i said the lazy loser way out um or in but either way not for it and we can control it and more importantly they can control it you you control what type of content is consumed and it's really simple to stop stuff like this. If they're forced to label the content correctly, which I'm assuming YouTube will force them to do, you have an option to view it or not view it and the analytics will tell. And so that's where I fall on it. But listen, let us know what you guys think. This was a fascinating topic. It's a polarizing topic. It brings up a lot of

other conversations regarding AI. So we thought it'd be interesting to cover it specifically because we're in this space and it's something that can affect us and the people we talk about every single week. So weigh in down in the comments below. Let us know what you think. Stephanie Harlow, any final words for Paul or anybody else for that matter? No, I'm not going to talk to that lazy loser Paul anymore. He knows how I feel. Paul, you're cut off. You're cut off, Paul. Paul's not even a guy, by the way. He's probably some- Probably AI. Yeah. Yeah. He's overseas or whatever. He's probably actual AI and that's why he's so emotionless about it. And he's just like- Yeah. The AI, the interview was conducted to an AI computer. Why are you humans so mad about this?

It sounds like AI answers, but no, let us know what you guys think. We're going to be back later this week with the Bear Brook murders, part three, the third and final part. You don't want to miss that. Make sure you catch the first two parts. If you haven't already, we're going to be finalizing it. Audio on Friday, YouTube on Sunday. Everyone stay safe out there.

We'll see you later this week. Bye.