A misleading AI summary changed what people remembered seeing in a controlled study

You watch a short traffic video. A day or two later, an AI-generated summary tells you the car approached a different sign. When researchers then ask what you saw, how much of your answer comes from the original scene, and how much from the summary? A Georgetown and University of Washington team tested this with U.S. adults watching animated car-pedestrian accident clips. Of 331 people who completed both sessions, 328 passed the attention checks and entered the analysis. Correct recall of the sign was 83.6% after an accurate summary and 44.8% after a misleading one. The label did not reliably protect people: telling participants the text came from AI rather than a human did not significantly change the misinformation effect. This is a controlled result about a specific detail, not proof that every AI summary implants false memories or that police footage behaves the same way. The researchers separately sampled 20 model-generated video summaries and found frequent omissions, but that tiny task-specific sample should not be turned into an error rate for all products. The practical concern is that a reviewer may sincerely try to verify a summary against memory, yet the summary has already influenced what feels familiar. For workplaces, schools and especially investigations, the safeguard is to preserve the original record, disclose what was machine-generated, and check consequential claims against source material before exposure to a polished summary becomes the only version anyone remembers.