[harry8]

>This has nothing to do with AI being unreliable

This has everything to do with AI being unreliable. AI is unreliable. It was unreliable yet again here. Anyone relying on AI as the evidence in a prosecution needs to have their faces rubbed in the ignorance. AI is as unreliable as any human being. In fact, it is more unreliable because people understand the limits of the reliability of humans and look for corroboration and examine the evidence with a mind on its potential shortcomings. Yet there is still this pervasive and pernicious belief that "Computers don't lie" which is completely and utterly false and worth repeating often, with emphasis until it is part of human collective understanding of the world to the same degree that water is wet.

"Computer says x" by itself counts for nothing. Anyone presenting evidence like that by alone should be presenting a huge red flag that something nasty is going on, via either malice or sheer incompetence.

[jjk166]

The AI was reliable. It correctly identified that the individuals in two videos were the same person.

The problem was that one human recorded a name that they should have known was not real, and another person read that name in a report and arrested someone with that name. The story would have been no different if a human had correctly recognized the same person in both videos.