4 ms·

I'm glad common sense is still alive, this is the correct precedent to set.

mdp2021 3y ago
But should not laws about the properties of accepted evidence be already in place, from which this specific rule would be entailed?
- lettergram 3y ago
  Yeah, like the way DNA evidence is used or bullet matching or finger print matching or blood spatter analysis or lie detector tests or fire analysis… All of these have massive error rates (for various reasons, but simply that it’s an uncontrolled environment with potentially bias data collectors & scientists opens lots of issues). I agree better laws should be in place, but I suspect the there may be less issues with “enhance” than many of the items listed above.
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    Right, there many other cases that require being dealt with complexity... But that would be a fault in logic - not treating Bayesian contexts (of priors and posteriors) properly, outside a solid framework. Which should be a recognized part of the process. Not many centuries ago a form called "spectral evidence" was used, according to which that the victim stated that the suspect appeared to them in dreams and fantasies was valid evidence - it was used in the Salem witch trials, for example. It is possible to see a definite lack of "good common sense". (And a parallel title on the HN frontpage today goes "[Autoconf] makes me think we stopped evolving too soon".) This said, > there may be less issues with “enhance” than many of the items listed above one thing is imperfect measurement and false positives, another hallucinating details...
smeagull 3y ago
Yeah, those weirdos using AI to "compress" and "enhance" their videos with Cosine transforms. Get out of court!
- mdp2021 3y ago
  Did you mean "without" Cosine transforms? Is not a Fourier transform a «peer-reviewable-process» as per the article?
- camillomiller 3y ago
  Silly comparison. The article clearly states that Topaz Labs’ tool was used. That tool is known for being quite good but also it does still hallucinate in small portions of the images sometimes. Photography contests, for example, clearly exclude Topaz Labs-style gen-AI enhancements from entering.
- andersa 3y ago
  That's not what they're doing. This was using one of those generative ai hallucination tools that "add detail" to a video to make it look fancier. Something like that clearly has no place in a courtroom.

mdp2021 3y ago

But should not laws about the properties of accepted evidence be already in place, from which this specific rule would be entailed?

lettergram 3y ago
Yeah, like the way DNA evidence is used or bullet matching or finger print matching or blood spatter analysis or lie detector tests or fire analysis… All of these have massive error rates (for various reasons, but simply that it’s an uncontrolled environment with potentially bias data collectors & scientists opens lots of issues). I agree better laws should be in place, but I suspect the there may be less issues with “enhance” than many of the items listed above.
- mdp2021 3y ago
  Right, there many other cases that require being dealt with complexity... But that would be a fault in logic - not treating Bayesian contexts (of priors and posteriors) properly, outside a solid framework. Which should be a recognized part of the process. Not many centuries ago a form called "spectral evidence" was used, according to which that the victim stated that the suspect appeared to them in dreams and fantasies was valid evidence - it was used in the Salem witch trials, for example. It is possible to see a definite lack of "good common sense". (And a parallel title on the HN frontpage today goes "[Autoconf] makes me think we stopped evolving too soon".) This said, > there may be less issues with “enhance” than many of the items listed above one thing is imperfect measurement and false positives, another hallucinating details...

smeagull 3y ago

Yeah, those weirdos using AI to "compress" and "enhance" their videos with Cosine transforms. Get out of court!

mdp2021 3y ago
Did you mean "without" Cosine transforms? Is not a Fourier transform a «peer-reviewable-process» as per the article?
camillomiller 3y ago
Silly comparison. The article clearly states that Topaz Labs’ tool was used. That tool is known for being quite good but also it does still hallucinate in small portions of the images sometimes. Photography contests, for example, clearly exclude Topaz Labs-style gen-AI enhancements from entering.
andersa 3y ago
That's not what they're doing. This was using one of those generative ai hallucination tools that "add detail" to a video to make it look fancier. Something like that clearly has no place in a courtroom.