[MonkeyMalarky]

I wonder if that'll ever cause legal problems in the future. Sorry, that photo someone took where the accused was in background at a party some years ago? He was kinda blurry and those facial features have been enhanced with AI, that evidence will have to be thrown out. Or maybe the photo is of you, and you need it as an alibi..

[Grambo]

This is actually exactly what happened during the Kyle Rittenhouse case. A lawyer for the defense tried to question video evidence because of AI being used to enhance zoomed shots.

[dtx1]

No that was what the mainstream media lied to you about what happened in the rittenhouse case. One of several instances where one could see fake news and straight up lies be spread in real time.

What actually happened was that a police officer testified that using pinch to zoom on his iPhone he saw kyle point his rifle at the first person assaulting him. Mind you we were talking about a cluster of around 5px. The state wanted to use an iPad to show the jury using pinch to zoom that same "evidence" because using proper zooming without an unknown interpolator algorithm the defense using an expert witness showed that this was not the case. No one in that courtroom understood the difference between linear and bicubic interpolation.

The defense did not understand it either so they tried to explain to the judge that the iPad Might use AI to interpolate pixels that aren't there and that the jury should only use the properly scaled video the court provided not an ad hoc pinch to zoom version in an iPad with unknown interpolation.

Thankfully the judge told the state to fuck off with their iPad but the mainstream media used the bad explanation of the defense against kyle when the reality was that the state basically tried to fake evidence live on stream using an iPad to zoom in.

BTW I'm German so I don't have a horse in the political race but I watched the Trial on live stream and saw the fake news come out while watching

[cwilkes]

The story isn’t “the state tried to fake” but rather the defense tried to get thrown out any image taken by a non analog camera as AI could have added detail where there is none.

[dtx1]

I was watching this live for several days. That is not what happened. The defense paid an expert witness to upscale and enhance DIGITAL FOOTAGE using court appropriate tools. The defense never "tried to throw out any image taken by a non analog camera". They themselves USED DIGITAL FOOTAGE for their defense. I am sorry but you have been lied to by the media.

This is what the defense actually said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf7xCMFBv5c

And here's the expert witness the defense brought on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GhsbizmfMs

[pessimizer]

You're objecting to things that no one in this thread has claimed. You're taking an argument you've had other places and continuing it here.

I watched the testimony, it was accurately characterized by the person you replied to, and it was a good argument for the defense to make.

[dtx1]

It was accurate in the sense that the lawyer used the word ai. In context the lawyer said "Apple uses logarithms (sic) and AI to enhance the images. I don't know how that works". The word AI was used but in context the non-technical lawyer simply meant image enhancing algorithms. No one in that room actually discussed AI.

That being said, one could interpret the top comment that way.

[ThrowawayTestr]

All this worry about AIs framing people when people can't even interpret regular evidence.

[UncleEntity]

It’s funny, twenty years ago I was specifically told not to use digital cameras but the crappy disposable film camera provided in case of an accident precisely because the digital version could be contested in court.