From a legal/evidence perspective, what is going to happen when it will become impossible to tell the difference between a video generated by AI versus the real thing? - eviltoast
  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Witness testimony was never very good, and that’s not going to change. Humans are too fallible, their testimony is too easy to attack. We don’t necessarily go back to something that worked like shit in the first place.

    Fortunately fingerprints and DNA are still harder to fake. For now.

    • Halosheep@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fingerprints are a faux science as it is anyway, pretty much for the same reasons witness testimony is nearly worthless. Vsauce2 did a really good video discussing fingerprint evidence and how the specialist are very frequently wrong. Not to mention that the “all humans have unique fingerprints” idea was debunked.

      DNA evidence is really the only fool-proof evidence we have.

    • sun_is_ra@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was talking specifically about alternative to video cameras. DNA and Finger Printi/ DNA are only relevantforr certain type of crimes that involve close contact (rape, murder, roberry) but they are not alternative to cameras. You can’t use them for crimes like hit&run, Firing projectiles, abduction , deciding who is at fault in an accident, showing police using force without reason, someone accepting bribe , …

      DNA, Fingerprint are complementary tools not replacement