[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.