180
Given AI models’ penchant for hallucinating and the blackbox nature of it all, it seems like it shouldn’t be admissible. AI is fine for creative endeavors, but in arenas where facts matter, AI can’t be trusted.
But I thought we were trying to make Black Mirror a reality?
Oh no, we're still plowing ahead with this self-induced AI nightmare, this is just a speed bump...
Friend Computer always knows what's best for us. All praise the Computer and woe to the Mutant, Commie, Scum who would try to bring ruin upon our beneficent Computer overlord!
Good on that judge. If the video is unclear before AI fucks with it then whatever you're trying to show falls well within reasonable doubt.
Excellent ruling. Scary times.
Edit: my comment isn't about exactly the same thing, but ..
Some new camera tech might be opening a can of worms about whether what's pictured can be taken literally.
There was a story late last year of a woman trying on a wedding dress in front of two mirrors and someone snapped a photo.
When they looked at it, the reflection on the left mirror had a different pose to the reflection on The right mirror.
And this cast doubt on what exactly was going on the moment the shutter was pressed.
It looks like the camera had one of the stitch together the best photo of the people pictured (e.g. don't show shots of people blinking etc) and it treated the mirror images as different people.
I mean, yeah but in that everything that happened was real, and happen within a second probably at most of eachother. Still definitely permissible. AI is a very different story.
My info may be out of date but last I knew you could not use any edited photographic evidence in court, done by ai or not, in the US.
"Your Honor, as you can see from the footage, my client sprouted 7 fingers out of his hand, with such a condition, he couldn't possibly operate a firearm..."
This seems like one of those technologies which may be useful as an investigatory tool, but should ultimately not admissible in court. For example, if law enforcement has a grainy video of a crime, and they use AI enhancement to generate leads, that could be ok. Though, it will still have issues with bias and false leads; so, such usage should be tracked and data kept on it to show usefulness and bias. But, anything done to a video by AI should almost universally be considered suspect. AI is really good at making up plausible results which are complete bullshit.
But CSI told me that all you have to do to catch a criminal is to enhance! What will they do now?!
This isn't really new. It came up at the Kyle Rittenhouse trial back in 2021.
It's just that everything wasn't called "AI" back then. Same enhancement algorithms and processing techniques being used though.
It was still AI back then too, it just hadn't entered the zeitgeist so no one would've understood what it meant.
Does this ruling apply to all AI processed images or only ones for generative AI? What about stuff like DLSS that utilizes deep learning?
I would imagine that using an AI to create a video and voice of a defendant to "say" something from a transcript would be much more impressive than someone reading it.
I'm generally against the whole anti-AI stuff these days but this makes perfect sense. There's no way of verifying whether or not the content of an upscaled image is accurate.
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
180 points (98.4% liked)
News
23266 readers
3552 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS