Ah yeah, that idea is understandable at face value but so unbelievably ridiculous under slight examination. Even court experts have to constantly restate why th

Ah yeah, that idea is understandable at face value but so unbelievably ridiculous under slight examination. Even court experts have to constantly restate why they are qualified to know something and then how they know it, yet a computer program, written by people who are often not experts in the field in question, gets a free pass. It's absurd. There needs to be some baseline level of demonstrable proof that a computer system actually reflects reality, and in a form that the defense actually has a genuine chance of answering, otherwise justice is precluded. In the age of AI, this kind of jurisprudence is even more terrifying.