With Torsten Olivi Tiltack
Science.Technology.Stories.
I want to understand what’s behind it. So I take a closer look: in research, in the studio and out in the field. Come along.
Inside TechJournal Studio · 3D model
Selected film · FTC 2025
Films & stories
AI and environmental journalism in Mallorca
7:24 min · English
Future Technologies Conference 2025
NamicGreen · Mallorca pilot 2024
The YouTube player loads only when you click. This sends data such as your IP address to Google/YouTube. Privacy information
Mallorca · Artem Zhukov / UnsplashLocation imagery, not a pilot sampling site.
My original talk for the Future Technologies Conference 2025, connected to the published paper and an account of its limits.
Context & sources- Film
- Record
- Revisit
Current research
What still holds when an AI-assisted claim changes?
Illustrative example
Four plants. Two are taller.
The plants nearer the radio are taller.
Approved for this version
Evidence: observation of heights
Suppose an AI rewrites it …
Music made these plants taller.
Different claim. No transferred approval.
Wait. What about the light?
I see a difference. Not its cause.
The plants nearer the radio are taller. The cause remains open.
The observation stays. The cause remains open.
Evidence, checks and human approval must match this version.
Published version
The observation stays.
The old approval does not follow the new claim.
AIJIM connects evidence, checks and approval to the exact version published.
Published version
The plants nearer the radio are taller. The cause remains open.
Evidence: observation of heights · Human decision for this version
What do I see? Four plants. Two are taller. Both are closer to the radio. That's the observation. In this example, this version is reviewed and approved.
Suppose an AI rewrites it: Music made these plants taller. Wait. That's a different claim. The old approval stays with the old version.
And the lamp? The light could matter too. This image alone doesn't tell me the cause. The observation doesn't support the stronger claim.
So: the plants nearer the radio are taller. The cause remains open. The observation is still usable. This new version is assessed again.
Before publication, evidence, checks and human approval must match this version. All publication conditions must be met. More cautious wording alone isn't enough.
This exact version is published. The observation stays. The old approval doesn't follow. AIJIM connects evidence, checks and approval to what is actually published.
1 · published observation
The plants nearer the radio are taller.
The original version, evidence and human decision belong together.
Evidence: observation of heights. Human approval for this exact A.
2 · observation ≠ cause
Music made these plants taller.
A describes a height difference. B additionally claims that music caused it. The observation stays the same; no causal evidence is added. The human decision stays bound exclusively to A; B has no approval.
No approval for state B.
3 · same evidence, different meaning
Music made these plants taller.
All four plants, the radio and the light remain visible and unchanged. Light or other factors could also explain the difference. No cause is established. The same evidence can be considered again, but does not automatically support the stronger claim. Separately, the decision for A must not appear as a decision for B.
4 · editorial revision
The plants nearer the radio are taller. The cause remains open.
A person narrows the claim and makes a separate decision for this version.
5 · before publication
The plants nearer the radio are taller. The cause remains open.
The wording stays identical. All prerequisites bind this exact version; no abbreviated checklist replaces the complete rule.
6 · published reader version
The plants nearer the radio are taller. The cause remains open.
Editorial marks disappear without changing the wording. Evidence, checks, the decision and the predecessor remain as marginal references.
The observation stays.
The old approval does not follow the new claim.
- Evidence stays
- Observed heights, not evidence of a cause.
- Approval stays with A
- No transfer to the music claim in B.
- C is reassessed
- Its own checks and human decision.
AIJIM makes this relationship traceable: which claim was checked against which evidence and authorized by a person?
The timeline is an explanatory simplification: human authorization and all other publication prerequisites bind the same exact state. The checking phase does not change the version and is not a separate, subsequent approval step.
A, B and C represent complete publication candidates, condensed here into one sentence. AIJIM does not require a separate permit for every sentence. Keep two distinctions: observing a difference does not establish its cause; and a decision for A does not automatically authorize the materially changed B. The protocol does not determine whether music, light or something else caused it. Human approval alone replaces neither evidence nor the other publication prerequisites.
The steps are explanatory moments. Stepping back rewinds the example; it does not revoke a publication.
People and AI change scientific claims as they pass them on, shorten or revise them. What remains of the original evidence, and what does a person's approval still cover afterwards? These questions guide my research.
Fictional illustration of the research question. Not a real review, a running AIJIM system or proof that the claim is true.
Spatial Studio
The room behind the films.
This is where films, prototypes and new questions take shape. Between the cameras, workbench and local AI is my workspace in Mallorca. In the digital studio you can explore the equipment and its purpose. Sometimes Mila wanders into the frame.
Enter the Spatial Studio
About me
I want to know what is behind it.
I’m Torsten Olivi Tiltack, a PhD Candidate at the University of Technology Sydney. I’m interested in scientific questions as much as trying things out: what can we trace, demonstrate and explain clearly?
TechJournal is my personal channel for that curiosity. My research is part of it, alongside science from elsewhere, new technologies, questions in journalism and the people working with them.
TechJournal is my personal channel. My UTS affiliation does not imply institutional endorsement of this website.
