[pixl97]

This is going to be interesting in the world of supporting evidence for criminal cases.

For example, lets say someone accused of a violent crime and the prosecutor wants it upgraded to a hate crime. Now lets the accused did not post a life of hate on facebook. But instead there are just a few audio recordings of the accused saying "I hate X people, I want to kill them all" brought to the court by someone else and not found in the accused possession.

As time progresses it will likely become more difficult to prove that the audio is real. Deepfakes of audio are convincingly good these days. Soon the recordings of politicians saying terrible things will be met with a default reply of "it's a deepfake", and it's likely a bunch of them will be.

Future is going to be messy, yo.

[anoonmoose]

The example you described is handled by our current system. (For the moment, let's put aside whether or not the system always works as intended). Evidence isn't just "brought to court by someone else". It doesn't just appear. Someone needs to be saying "this is the accused saying this"- during the discovery process before the trial the defense will have an opportunity to refute that claim. If it's another witness, they will be cross-examined by the defense and the jury will need to decide if the testimony is credible or not. If they lie, they will have committed perjury, and all of what I just said is true (roughly, I'm not a lawyer) whether you use AI or a good voice actor.