|
|
|
|
|
|
by tashbarg
606 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|