[jasonvorhe]

This modern narrative of people posting their opinions or assumptions somewhere being "dangerous" because someone could just believe it is much more dangerous because it can be applied to any opinion anywhere that was ever published.

No judge will ever rule on something based on a comment they read in the Internet.

[tashbarg]

Judges usually rely on experts in forensic science who, of course, are infallible and absolutely not influenced by what they read online during their day.

https://innocenceproject.org/misapplication-of-forensic-scie...

It is dangerous to push the narrative that GenAI can "put information back" where it was once removed. Especially dangerous, because most GenAI is built to put something there that is extremely believable. And while an innocent comment on HN might not play the biggest role, the linked project claims exactly what it can - by definition - not do ("a PhotoDNA hash can be used to produce thumbnail-quality reproductions of the original image") and it looks scientific, too.

[ogurechny]

You have already assumed that “judges” are somehow better suited to make such decisions than “regular people”, even though they are simply cogs in the wheels of social machines, and will mostly automatically approve anything up to mass murders if “general direction” of the society is like that. But it's convenient for you to believe that they have certain qualities.

Needless to say, when people are so brainwashed that they are ready to pray to actual machines, decisions of those machines won't be questioned. It would just be inconvenient.