3 ms·

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 th

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...