this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
946 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59111 readers
5002 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 210 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"Your honor, the evidence shows quite clearly that the defendent was holding a weapon with his third arm."

[–] [email protected] 171 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (34 children)

If you ever encountered an AI hallucinating stuff that just does not exist at all, you know how bad the idea of AI enhanced evidence actually is.

load more comments (34 replies)
[–] [email protected] 148 points 7 months ago (28 children)

No computer algorithm can accurately reconstruct data that was never there in the first place.

Ever.

This is an ironclad law, just like the speed of light and the acceleration of gravity. No new technology, no clever tricks, no buzzwords, no software will ever be able to do this.

Ever.

If the data was not there, anything created to fill it in is by its very nature not actually reality. This includes digital zoom, pixel interpolation, movement interpolation, and AI upscaling. It preemptively also includes any other future technology that aims to try the same thing, regardless of what it's called.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 7 months ago (1 children)

One little correction, digital zoom is not something that belongs on that list. It’s essentially just cropping the image. That said, “enhanced” digital zoom I agree should be on that list.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Are you saying CSI lied to me?

Even CSI: Miami?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Digital zoom is just cropping and enlarging. You're not actually changing any of the data. There may be enhancement applied to the enlarged image afterwards but that's a separate process.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 7 months ago (1 children)

But the fact remains that digital zoom cannot create details that were invisible in the first place due to the distance from the camera to the subject. Modern implementations of digital zoom always use some manner of interpolation algorithm, even if it's just a simple linear blur from one pixel to the next.

The problem is not in how a digital zoom works, it's on how people think it works but doesn't. A lot of people (i.e. [l]users, ordinary non-technical people) still labor under the impression that digital zoom somehow makes the picture "closer" to the subject and can enlarge or reveal details that were not detectable in the original photo, which is a notion we need to excise from people's heads.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Hold up. Digital zoom is, in all the cases I'm currently aware of, just cropping the available data. That's not reconstruction, it's just losing data.

Otherwise, yep, I'm with you there.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 116 points 7 months ago (35 children)

I think we need to STOP calling it "Artificial Intelligence". IMHO that is a VERY misleading name. I do not consider guided pattern recognition to be intelligence.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 months ago

A term created in order to vacuum up VC funding for spurious use cases.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It's the new "4k". Just buzzwords to get clicks.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My disappointment when I realised "4k" was only 2160p 😔

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (7 children)

on the contrary! it's a very old buzzword!

AI should be called machine learning. much better. If i had my way it would be called "fancy curve fitting" henceforth.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Optical Character Recognition used to be firmly in the realm of AI until it became so common that even the post office uses it. Nowadays, OCR is so common that instead of being proper AI, it’s just another mundane application of a neural network. I guess, eventually Large Language Models will be outside there scope of AI.

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] [email protected] 97 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 95 points 7 months ago (14 children)

How long until we got upscalers of various sorts built into tech that shouldn't have it? For bandwidth reduction, for storage compression, or cost savings. Can we trust what we capture with a digital camera, when companies replace a low quality image of the moon with a professionally taken picture, at capture time? Can sport replays be trusted when the ball is upscaled inside the judges' screens? Cheap security cams with "enhanced night vision" might get somebody jailed.

I love the AI tech. But its future worries me.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Dehance! [Click click click.]

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It will wild out for the foreseeable future until the masses stop falling for it in gimmicks then it will be reserved for the actual use cases where it's beneficial once the bullshit ai stops making money.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

Lol, you think the masses will stop falling for it in gimmicks? Just look at the state of the world.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (7 children)

AI-based video codecs are on the way. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because it could be designed to be lossless or at least less lossy than modern codecs. But compression artifacts will likely be harder to identify as such. That's a good thing for film and TV, but a bad thing for, say, security cameras.

The devil's in the details and "AI" is way too broad a term. There are a lot of ways this could be implemented.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I don't think loss is what people are worried about, really - more injecting details that fit the training data but don't exist in the source.

Given the hoopla Hollywood and directors made about frame-interpolation, do you think generated frames will be any better/more popular?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 60 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I’d love to see the “training data” for this model, but I can already predict it will be 99.999% footage of minorities labelled ‘criminal’.

And cops going “Aha! Even AI thinks minorities are committing all the crime”!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Imagine a prosecution or law enforcement bureau that has trained an AI from scratch on specific stimuli to enhance and clarify grainy images. Even if they all were totally on the up-and-up (they aren't, ACAB), training a generative AI or similar on pictures of guns, drugs, masks, etc for years will lead to internal bias. And since AI makers pretend you can't decipher the logic (I've literally seen compositional/generative AI that shows its work), they'll never realize what it's actually doing.

So then you get innocent CCTV footage this AI "clarifies" and pattern-matches every dark blurb into a gun. Black iPhone? Maybe a pistol. Black umbrella folded up at a weird angle? Clearly a rifle. And so on. I'm sure everyone else can think of far more frightening ideas like auto-completing a face based on previously searched ones or just plain-old institutional racism bias.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 7 months ago

According to the evidence, the defendant clearly committed the crime with all 17 of his fingers. His lack of remorse is obvious by the fact that he's clearly smiling wider than his own face.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 7 months ago

clickity clackity

"ENHANCE"

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago (8 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago

It's incredibly obvious when you call the current generation of AI by its full name, generative AI. It's creating data, that's what it's generating.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago

Everything that is labeled "AI" is made up. It's all just statistically probable guessing, made by a machine that doesn't know what it is doing.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (5 children)

The fact that it made it that far is really scary.

I'm starting to think that yes, we are going to have some new middle ages before going on with all that "per aspera ad astra" space colonization stuff.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Why not make it a fully AI court and save time if they were going to go that way. It would save so much time and money.

Of course it wouldn't be very just, but then regular courts aren't either.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (13 children)

This actually opens an interesting debate.

Every photo you take with your phone is post processed. Saturation can be boosted, light levels adjusted, noise removed, night mode, all without you being privy as to what's happening.

Typically people are okay with it because it makes for a better photo - but is it a true representation of the reality it tried to capture? Where is the line of the definition of an ai-enhanced photo/video?

We can currently make the judgement call that a phones camera is still a fair representation of the truth, but what about when the 4k AI-Powered Night Sight Camera does the same?

My post is more tangentially related to original article, but I'm still curious as what the common consensus is.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You'd think it would be obvious you can't submit doctored evidence and expect it to be upheld in court.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

For example, there was a widespread conspiracy theory that Chris Rock was wearing some kind of face pad when he was slapped by Will Smith at the Academy Awards in 2022. The theory started because people started running screenshots of the slap through image upscalers, believing they could get a better look at what was happening.

Sometimes I think, our ancestors shouldn’t have made it out of the ocean.

load more comments
view more: next ›