4 ms·

Biggest fear is people being put in prison based on deepfake video evidence.

• ehnto 5y ago
  At some point it might make video evidence inadmissible. I imagine a tool like Reality Defender offers could be used in court to tackle this, but now Reality Defender itself needs verification. Like all tools used to verify evidence I suppose. Is a negative from Reality Defender enough to prove that a video is real, or is it only valid proof when it's proving it's fake?
  • panarky 5y ago
    It's not about verification, it's about reasonable doubt.
    • ehnto 5y ago
      Right, but verification is the opposite direction of doubt. It's not that verification is a boolean true or false for the evidence, it just helps remove doubt. For example, CCTV footage verified to be pulled from a service station by the police is less easy to doubt CCTV footage provided by a friend of the accused. Adding a verification paper trail to that makes it even harder to doubt. DNA test results provided by the defendant are worth nothing unless they're verified by a paper trail that's trusted. So back to Reality Defender, why shouldn't we doubt Reality Defenders positive or negative results? There would need to be a period of verification and testing that "proves" within a reasonable margin that it works.
      • bpcrd 5y ago
        Great comments - Better results require more data, improving models, and onboarding new (different) models. All areas of focus for us!