4 ms·

> There's literally nothing different about deepfakes. That's a bit disingenuous don't you think?

• crazygringo 6y ago
  In the context of a court's ability to deal with them? No. What's disingenuous about it?
  • lolsal 6y ago
    > In the context of a court's ability to deal with them? From the legal perspective, I think you're right that "at the end of the day" faked evidence is faked evidence and we do have protocols and processes for that kind of thing. Dismissing faked evidence is not new. However, earlier you said this: > There's literally nothing different about deepfakes. I'd argue requiring AI/ML to create or invalidate deep fakes is _literally_ very different from generating fake emails, fake photos, or fake audio. It's also _literally_ different from things like CGI video. The standard of what counts as evidence is _literally_ changing as deep fakes evolve. Validating video evidence, in the new era of deep fakes is now very different. Your clarification about the context of the courts ability to deal with them is an example of how you were being disingenuous, in my opinion. You made a blanket statement about deep fakes are literally the same as other faked evidence and then afterwards put a clarifying condition around the statement to narrow it to the court's ability to deal with faked evidence. If we're just talking about faked evidence and how to deal with it - I think we agree: Determine if evidence is legitimate however you have to, and then toss it out if it's not legitimate. But we're talking about deep fakes in this context and your statements dismissed all of the things that make deep fakes different in the context of determining legitimate evidence, or how deep fakes will impact the court system. We are transitioning (over decades, already) from a standard of evidence of "This is video evidence of the truth of what happened" to "Some people think this video is probably not real." That's a big difference.