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.

    • Downcount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Look it this way: If you have an unreadable licence plate because of low resolution, interpolating won’t make it readable (as long as we didn’t switch to a CSI universe). An AI, on the other hand, could just “invent” (I know, I know, normy speak in your eyes) a readable one.

      You will draw yourself the line when you get your first ticket for speeding, when it wasn’t your car.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        License plates is an interesting case because with a known set of visual symbols (known fonts used by approved plate issuers) you can often accurately deblur even very very blurry text (but not with AI algorithms, but rather by modeling the blur of the cameras and the unique blur gradients this results in for each letter). It does require a certain minimum pixel resolution of the letters to guarantee unambiguity though.

      • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Interesting example, because tickets issued by automated cameras aren’t enforced in most places in the US. You can safely ignore those tickets and the police won’t do anything about it because they know how faulty these systems are and most of the cameras are owned by private companies anyway.

        “Readable” is a subjective matter of interpretation, so again, I’m confused on how exactly you’re distinguishing good & pure fictional pixels from bad & evil fictional pixels

        • Downcount@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          8 months ago

          Being tickets enforced or not doesn’t change my argumentation nor invalidates it.

          You are acting stubborn and childish. Everything there was to say has been said. If you still think you are right, do it, as you are not able or willing to understand. Let me be clear: I think you are trolling and I’m not in any mood to participate in this anymore.

          • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Sorry, it’s just that I work in a field where making distinctions is based on math and/or logic, while you’re making a distinction between AI- and non-AI-based image interpolation based on opinion and subjective observation

            • pm_me_ur_thoughts@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              8 months ago

              Okay, I’m not disagreeing with you about the fact that its all math.

              However, interpolation or pixels is simple math. AI generated is complex math and is only as good as its training data.

              The licence example is a good one. In interpolation, it’ll just find some average, midpoint, etc and fill the pixel. In AI gen, if the training set had your number plate 999 times in a set of 1000, it will generate your numberplate no matter whose plate you input. to use it as evidence would need it to be far more deterministic than the probabilistic nature of AI gen content.

        • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You can safely ignore those tickets and the police won’t do anything

          Wait what? No.

          It’s entirely possible if you ignore the ticket, a human might review it and find there’s insufficient evidence. But if, for example, you ran a red light and they have a photo that shows your number plate and your face… then you don’t want to ignore that ticket. And they generally take multiple photos, so even if the one you received on the ticket doesn’t identify you, that doesn’t mean you’re safe.

          When automated infringement systems were brand new the cameras were low quality / poorly installed / didn’t gather evidence necessary to win a court challenge… getting tickets overturned was so easy they didn’t even bother taking it to court. But it’s not that easy now, they have picked up their game and are continuing to improve the technology.

          Also - if you claim someone else was driving your car, and then they prove in court that you were driving… congratulations, your slap on the wrist fine is now a much more serious matter.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I mean we “invent” pixels anyway for pretty much all digital photography based on Bayer filters.

      But the answer is linear interpolation. That’s where we draw the line. We have to be able to point to a line of code and say where the data came from, rather than a giant blob of image data that could contain anything.

    • Catoblepas
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      What’s your bank account information? I’m either going to add or subtract a lot of money from it. Both alter your account balance so you should be fine with either right?