When AI “Enhancement” Becomes Evidence: Why Deterministic Methods Are Quietly Changing the Courtroom

Courts recently rejected generative AI image enhancement in State v. Puluka because the technology introduced hallucinated visual detail that could not be traced to the original evidence. Deterministic enhancement methods operate differently. Instead of generating new imagery, they reconstruct structure already present within the signal, allowing the process to remain reproducible, auditable, and forensically defensible. This distinction is beginning to shape how artificial intelligence can be used in legal environments, where reliability and evidentiary integrity matter more than visual appearance.