4 ms·
I was watching this live for several days. That is not what happened. The defense paid an expert witness to upscale and enhance DIGITAL FOOTAGE using court appr
by dtx1 4y ago
I was watching this live for several days. That is not what happened. The defense paid an expert witness to upscale and enhance DIGITAL FOOTAGE using court appropriate tools. The defense never "tried to throw out any image taken by a non analog camera". They themselves USED DIGITAL FOOTAGE for their defense. I am sorry but you have been lied to by the media.
This is what the defense actually said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf7xCMFBv5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf7xCMFBv5c
And here's the expert witness the defense brought on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GhsbizmfMs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GhsbizmfMs
- pessimizer 4y agoYou're objecting to things that no one in this thread has claimed. You're taking an argument you've had other places and continuing it here. I watched the testimony, it was accurately characterized by the person you replied to, and it was a good argument for the defense to make.
- dtx1 4y agoIt was accurate in the sense that the lawyer used the word ai. In context the lawyer said "Apple uses logarithms (sic) and AI to enhance the images. I don't know how that works". The word AI was used but in context the non-technical lawyer simply meant image enhancing algorithms. No one in that room actually discussed AI. That being said, one could interpret the top comment that way.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ThrowawayTestr 4y agoAll this worry about AIs framing people when people can't even interpret regular evidence.
- UncleEntity 4y agoIt’s funny, twenty years ago I was specifically told not to use digital cameras but the crappy disposable film camera provided in case of an accident precisely because the digital version could be contested in court.