10 ms·

Interestingly, we have seen in the last week in the Rittenhouse trial an example of a judge taking a hyper-skeptic position on technology - namely, distrusting

by jl6 5y ago

Interestingly, we have seen in the last week in the Rittenhouse trial an example of a judge taking a hyper-skeptic position on technology - namely, distrusting the zoom feature because it might add in extra information not present in the original image. It’s easy to ridicule this, and I do think that particular judge’s thought process was rooted in ignorance rather than plausible paranoia, but it’s not hard to see how cases like this Xerox bug sow the seeds of distrust in the non-tech populace. There really isn’t a lot of clear daylight between “the scanned copy might be different to the original” and “the zoomed version might be different to the original”.

anonu 5y ago
> was rooted in ignorance Not sure I follow. Someone questions a technical process because it might add extra information seems like a fairly cogent thought and awareness of tech. Even if it's not described or discussed in technical terms.
- kzrdude 5y ago
  Yes I think it's good if the judge has a deep respect for "There might be things I don't know here" instead of jumping to judgment
- jl6 5y ago
  I just meant that I think the judge simply has no idea of how computers draw images to screens, and that he wasn’t making a sophisticated argument about the risks of AI-based upscaling or unverified closed source software or some other kind of techno-trickery. And furthermore that this isn’t a slight on him, given how hard it is for the public to divine exactly how technology works, as illustrated by Xerox.
  - post_break 5y ago
    Ignorance and skepticism are completely different things.
NoPicklez 5y ago
Whilst I'm not defending anyone. Some people need to realise that a judge or a person, might reasonably know the answer to a question they ask. But they ask it to allow people to provide their own case or opinion. Where by doing so might bring to light technicalities or areas the haven't considered.
wodenokoto 5y ago
With AI up-ressing, zooming can definitely add new information, so the judge is not far off.
jasode 5y ago
>an example of a judge taking a hyper-skeptic position on technology - namely, distrusting the zoom feature because it might add in extra information not present in the original image. Some mocked the judge but here's an example where an AI upscaling algorithm added a human face that was never there: https://petapixel.com/2020/08/17/gigapixel-ai-accidentally-added-ryan-goslings-face-to-this-photo/ https://petapixel.com/2020/08/17/gigapixel-ai-accidentally-a... For terminology trivia, that algorithm seems to be doing a human version of pareidolia :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia EDIT: based on some replies I see, my cite isn't to claim that Apple iOS is using AI enhancement during zoom to add fake pixels. The point is to consider why the judge (who is not a computer programmer) is skeptical. Therefore, his request for expert testimony to rule out that the zoom function doesn't add false information is not that unreasonable. In other words, what's obvious to a HN tech audience doesn't always apply to judges who don't have the same technical knowledge of how zoom algorithms actually work. So considering the judge's state of mind, the "fact" that iOS zoom doesn't add false incriminating pixels isn't a fact to his level of satisfaction unless the prosecutors bring in an expert to confirm it.
- croes 5y ago
  Does the iPad zoom function any upscaling?
  - ImprobableTruth 5y ago
    You can't zoom without upscaling in some form. If you zoom in on an image in your browser, the image gets upscaled. It's going to be using a simple form of upscaling (default is bilinear), but it's still upscaling.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      AI-driven upscaling which fills in pixels using data from other images is quite different to algorithmic interpolation that only uses the available information in the image being worked on.
wongarsu 5y ago
There's a lot of work being done on deepfake-like video compression (e.g. Nvidia [1]). The judge might be unnecessarily distrustful today, but give it a year or two and his worry will be very warranted. 1: https://geekologie.com/2020/10/nvidia-creates-ai-video-compression-for.php https://geekologie.com/2020/10/nvidia-creates-ai-video-compr...
14 5y ago
Look at how easy it is to make a deepfake [0]. How can we effectively fact check in a world where visualization of the facts is the most dominant form of confirmation and now we can fake that? [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5uoKvSryN4o https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5uoKvSryN4o
baryphonic 5y ago
Some important context I didn't see in the tech press: the previous day, the prosecution violated Rittenhouse's Fifth Amendment rights and various other due process rights while questioning him on the stand. At one point, the prosecution attempted to defend themselves by arguing to the visibly angry judge that they had a "good faith explanation." The judge responded, "I don't believe you." From what the judge has seen in this trial, the prosecution has shown it will stoop to any low to get prejudicial evidence in front of the jury. I don't blame him at all for not just taking the prosecution's word for the veracity, authenticity and provenance of the photo.
- djsbs 5y ago
  I wouldnt be surprised if he declares a mistrial with prejudice. The 5th amendment stunt they pulled was jaw dropping.
  - cbozeman 5y ago
    And this judge is well-known as an advocate for defendant's rights... which ironically you would expect the left to champion.
- ufmace 5y ago
  Thanks. This is critical context for this case for why requesting this level of verification of evidence, which might be considered a stretch in normal circumstances, is much more justifiable in this case.
syshum 5y ago
IMO the Rittenhouse claim is not paranoia at all, Other analysis of that same video has definitely proved that what the prosecution is claiming is taking place is not taking place at all,
megous 5y ago
Skype can replace your "background" in realtime, so why ignorance, when regular users are using these video modification features all the time?
ryanmonroe 5y ago
The discussion around zoom becomes a lot less ridiculous when you see the video still they wanted to zoom in on. The prosecution wanted to zoom in in this video for the jury and argue Kyle was raising his gun and not his arm at that point in time. With this resolution, and the importance of that question to the trial, it makes more sense that the judge was being very cautious about zooming in. https://i.imgur.com/pTY58LW.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/pTY58LW.jpeg
83457 5y ago
Sounds like the reverse of ignorance.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dinkelberg 5y ago
In my view, it has become necessary to place some distrust in digital images due to the ML video processing that is being applied nowadays. Artificial neural networks are being used to "upscale" video footage, that is, to create footage that appears to have a higher resolution than the source material. It is clear that these methods can introduce artifacts ("details") into images that were "dreamt up" by the artificial neural network. I do not know how this relates to this specific trial, but if I were a judge I would want to rule out that footage used as evidence was manipulated by "AI".
thepasswordis 5y ago
The complaint about that video was completely valid, and it's shocking to me that technically literate people are mocking the judge's [and defense team's] apprehension about it. The prosecution was arguing about what essentially came down to the location of 1-2 individual pixels that were present after the image had been interpolated. Basically: the pixels that the prosecution were trying to argue showed the pointing of a gun were: 1) Only apparent when the image was "zoomed" (interpolated) in exactly the manner they wanted to use. 2) Not apparent in any of the videos or photos which were taken closer to the place they were talking about. The prosecution is depending on the idea that a computer can see more than a human can, and "enhance" a photo in such a way that shows something that nothing else does. It is absolutely ridiculous. Here is the image (linked above) which was itself cropped from a much larger image, and taken from about 150 meters away, at night, from the tiny sensor on a drone camera.
georgesw 5y ago
If you watched the trial, the reason the judge was skeptical is because the expert witness present to explain the process responded "I don't know" when asked to explain how the image enlargement works and admitted it adds additional unknown information. The judge further clarified by using an analogy, breathalyzers are often used by cops who dont know how they work, but the breathalyzers machine has already been judicially accepted as reliable evidence. This is not the case for upscale images.

by jl6 5y ago

anonu 5y ago

> was rooted in ignorance Not sure I follow. Someone questions a technical process because it might add extra information seems like a fairly cogent thought and awareness of tech. Even if it's not described or discussed in technical terms.

kzrdude 5y ago
Yes I think it's good if the judge has a deep respect for "There might be things I don't know here" instead of jumping to judgment
jl6 5y ago
I just meant that I think the judge simply has no idea of how computers draw images to screens, and that he wasn’t making a sophisticated argument about the risks of AI-based upscaling or unverified closed source software or some other kind of techno-trickery. And furthermore that this isn’t a slight on him, given how hard it is for the public to divine exactly how technology works, as illustrated by Xerox.
- post_break 5y ago
  Ignorance and skepticism are completely different things.

NoPicklez 5y ago

Whilst I'm not defending anyone. Some people need to realise that a judge or a person, might reasonably know the answer to a question they ask. But they ask it to allow people to provide their own case or opinion. Where by doing so might bring to light technicalities or areas the haven't considered.

wodenokoto 5y ago

With AI up-ressing, zooming can definitely add new information, so the judge is not far off.

jasode 5y ago

>an example of a judge taking a hyper-skeptic position on technology - namely, distrusting the zoom feature because it might add in extra information not present in the original image. Some mocked the judge but here's an example where an AI upscaling algorithm added a human face that was never there: https://petapixel.com/2020/08/17/gigapixel-ai-accidentally-added-ryan-goslings-face-to-this-photo/ https://petapixel.com/2020/08/17/gigapixel-ai-accidentally-a... For terminology trivia, that algorithm seems to be doing a human version of pareidolia :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia EDIT: based on some replies I see, my cite isn't to claim that Apple iOS is using AI enhancement during zoom to add fake pixels. The point is to consider why the judge (who is not a computer programmer) is skeptical. Therefore, his request for expert testimony to rule out that the zoom function doesn't add false information is not that unreasonable. In other words, what's obvious to a HN tech audience doesn't always apply to judges who don't have the same technical knowledge of how zoom algorithms actually work. So considering the judge's state of mind, the "fact" that iOS zoom doesn't add false incriminating pixels isn't a fact to his level of satisfaction unless the prosecutors bring in an expert to confirm it.

croes 5y ago
Does the iPad zoom function any upscaling?
- ImprobableTruth 5y ago
  You can't zoom without upscaling in some form. If you zoom in on an image in your browser, the image gets upscaled. It's going to be using a simple form of upscaling (default is bilinear), but it's still upscaling.
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    AI-driven upscaling which fills in pixels using data from other images is quite different to algorithmic interpolation that only uses the available information in the image being worked on.

wongarsu 5y ago

There's a lot of work being done on deepfake-like video compression (e.g. Nvidia [1]). The judge might be unnecessarily distrustful today, but give it a year or two and his worry will be very warranted. 1: https://geekologie.com/2020/10/nvidia-creates-ai-video-compression-for.php https://geekologie.com/2020/10/nvidia-creates-ai-video-compr...

14 5y ago

Look at how easy it is to make a deepfake [0]. How can we effectively fact check in a world where visualization of the facts is the most dominant form of confirmation and now we can fake that? [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5uoKvSryN4o https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5uoKvSryN4o

baryphonic 5y ago

Some important context I didn't see in the tech press: the previous day, the prosecution violated Rittenhouse's Fifth Amendment rights and various other due process rights while questioning him on the stand. At one point, the prosecution attempted to defend themselves by arguing to the visibly angry judge that they had a "good faith explanation." The judge responded, "I don't believe you." From what the judge has seen in this trial, the prosecution has shown it will stoop to any low to get prejudicial evidence in front of the jury. I don't blame him at all for not just taking the prosecution's word for the veracity, authenticity and provenance of the photo.

djsbs 5y ago
I wouldnt be surprised if he declares a mistrial with prejudice. The 5th amendment stunt they pulled was jaw dropping.
- cbozeman 5y ago
  And this judge is well-known as an advocate for defendant's rights... which ironically you would expect the left to champion.
ufmace 5y ago
Thanks. This is critical context for this case for why requesting this level of verification of evidence, which might be considered a stretch in normal circumstances, is much more justifiable in this case.

syshum 5y ago

IMO the Rittenhouse claim is not paranoia at all, Other analysis of that same video has definitely proved that what the prosecution is claiming is taking place is not taking place at all,

megous 5y ago

Skype can replace your "background" in realtime, so why ignorance, when regular users are using these video modification features all the time?

ryanmonroe 5y ago

The discussion around zoom becomes a lot less ridiculous when you see the video still they wanted to zoom in on. The prosecution wanted to zoom in in this video for the jury and argue Kyle was raising his gun and not his arm at that point in time. With this resolution, and the importance of that question to the trial, it makes more sense that the judge was being very cautious about zooming in. https://i.imgur.com/pTY58LW.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/pTY58LW.jpeg

83457 5y ago

Sounds like the reverse of ignorance.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dinkelberg 5y ago

In my view, it has become necessary to place some distrust in digital images due to the ML video processing that is being applied nowadays. Artificial neural networks are being used to "upscale" video footage, that is, to create footage that appears to have a higher resolution than the source material. It is clear that these methods can introduce artifacts ("details") into images that were "dreamt up" by the artificial neural network. I do not know how this relates to this specific trial, but if I were a judge I would want to rule out that footage used as evidence was manipulated by "AI".

thepasswordis 5y ago

The complaint about that video was completely valid, and it's shocking to me that technically literate people are mocking the judge's [and defense team's] apprehension about it. The prosecution was arguing about what essentially came down to the location of 1-2 individual pixels that were present after the image had been interpolated. Basically: the pixels that the prosecution were trying to argue showed the pointing of a gun were: 1) Only apparent when the image was "zoomed" (interpolated) in exactly the manner they wanted to use. 2) Not apparent in any of the videos or photos which were taken closer to the place they were talking about. The prosecution is depending on the idea that a computer can see more than a human can, and "enhance" a photo in such a way that shows something that nothing else does. It is absolutely ridiculous. Here is the image (linked above) which was itself cropped from a much larger image, and taken from about 150 meters away, at night, from the tiny sensor on a drone camera.

georgesw 5y ago

If you watched the trial, the reason the judge was skeptical is because the expert witness present to explain the process responded "I don't know" when asked to explain how the image enlargement works and admitted it adds additional unknown information. The judge further clarified by using an analogy, breathalyzers are often used by cops who dont know how they work, but the breathalyzers machine has already been judicially accepted as reliable evidence. This is not the case for upscale images.