Technology

58303 readers

14 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

958

Court Bans Use of 'AI-Enhanced' Video Evidence Because That's Not How AI Works (gizmodo.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

233 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A judge in Washington state has blocked video evidence that’s been “AI-enhanced” from being submitted in a triple murder trial. And that’s a good thing, given the fact that too many people seem to think applying an AI filter can give them access to secret visual data.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (12 children)

How is guided pattern recognition is different from imagination (and therefore intelligence) though?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Your comment is a good reason why these tools have no place in the courtroom: The things you describe as imagination.

They're image generation tools that will generate a new, unrelated image that happens to look similar to the source image. They don't reconstruct anything and they have no understanding of what the image contains. All they know is which color the pixels in the output might probably have given the pixels in the input.

It's no different from giving a description of a scene to an author, asking them to come up with any event that might have happened in such a location and then trying to use the resulting short story to convict someone.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

They don't reconstruct anything and they have no understanding of what the image contains.

With enough training they, in fact, will have some understanding. But that still leaves us with that "enhance meme" problem aka the limited resolution of the original data. There are no means to discover what exactly was hidden between visible pixels, only approximate. So yes you are correct, just described it a bit differently.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

they, in fact, will have some understanding

These models have spontaneously acquired a concept of things like perspective, scale and lighting, which you can argue is already an understanding of 3D space.

What they do not have (and IMO won't ever have) is consciousness. The fact we have created machines that have understanding of the universe without consciousness is very interesting to me. It's very illuminating on the subject of what consciousness is, by providing a new example of what it is not.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

I think AI doesn't need consciousness to be able to say what is on the picture, or to guess what else could specific details contain.

load more comments (8 replies)