It's the Fake News defense all over again, Musk and Trump would make good cellmates.
[flagged]
People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
171–180 of 200 posts
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. From a linked article from the one posted here, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musk... : > The attorneys for Huang’s family sought to depose Musk regarding recorded statements from 2016 in whic…
> He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not? > It's doubtful Musk would be willing to claim this one was fake - there are a lot of witnesses that could be dug up. But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't b…
> But then the prosecution doesn't need the video because they would have all of these witness, so why should it be admissible if it can't be authenticated?
There's not a "prosecution." Did you read the article I linked? This is a civil lawsuit (which also means a different level of evidence required, ultimately) still in fairly early stages. The trial hasn't even started. "Judge Evette Pennypacker tentatively ordered a limited, three-hour deposition where Musk could be asked whether he actually made the statements on the recordings" - there's no ruling of fact yet about if the video is real, the Judge is just saying "this looks like a bullshit excuse to avoid having to talk about your past comments."
The plaintiff is trying to get Musk to give a deposition regarding his claims about self-driving. Musk is trying to not even have to give that testimony. This is exactly that "we need to figure out if this evidence is real or not" process that you say is needed! Musk is just trying to throw that out and say "nah we don't even need it, it could be fake, ya know." The judge seems to think that a 6+ year old video from a fairly well-known publication carries enough weight compared to a lazy "IDK, sometimes people deep fake me" statement to be worth asking Musk further questions. That seems reasonable to me.
> How do you propose to prove if he actually remembers or not?
Obviously that's impossible, but it's also irrelevant. If he says he doesn't remember, but you have a video with an uploaded-to-Youtube-timestamp from 2016, and contemporary coverage, then you say "well, since you don't remember for sure, we're gonna go with all the evidence that suggests you did say this."
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normally in court you have to provide foundation that the evidence is accurate, for video that normally means the person that recorded the video tells the jury it is a true and accurate representation of what they saw. however the courts have been lack of late allowing police to download social media and YT videos and attest that "the video is a true and accurate representation of what I saw on social media post" bec…
What Musk is doing is sneakier and more deceptive in a different way than that, at an earlier stage. He's trying to get out of having to make any definitive statement about if it's a real video or not. From a linked article from the one posted here, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/27/elon-musk... : > The attorneys for Huang’s family sought to depose Musk regarding recorded statements from 2016 in whic…
> The judge's ruling here is "ok then if you want me to think it's fake, tell me that under oath."
Which seems quite reasonable to me. Tbh, reading the initial article, I almost imagine Musk discussing his case with his lawyers, and saying something off the cuft like "can't we just argue that this was a deep-fake", and forcing them to run with it.
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#174When courts still use lie detector tests and first person accounts as evidence (both of which have been proven to be close to useless), this will take a while for an actual solution to come by.
Lie detector tests are not admissible in court. They are an investigative tool.
So-called "lie detectors" are based on pseudoscience. They are just as much "investigative tool" as a kazoo can be used for drilling a hole in concrete.
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, i'm thinking about "reasonable person". I was just in the case (a few weeks ago) so this is quite fresh in my mind. For additional context, the criminal case i was part of the Jury for was handed a book of definitions for the given case. Things like Assault had qualifiers of Self Defense and Stand Your Ground. Each of these little nuance-y definitions included very implicit definitions of say, the force you use…
It sounds like you're agreeing; the "reasonable person" definition comes into play in self-defense, threats, etc. The "reasonable doubt" comes into play on the facts.
Yea, and i'm not making any grand statements or anything. Just what my experience was. I as a Juror felt woefully under prepared. It was kinda alarming, to be honest. They explicitly didn't want you to research the law even during the process, so they did want you (me) under prepared and "fresh".. but that didn't really mitigate the unease.
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you're agreeing; the "reasonable person" definition comes into play in self-defense, threats, etc. The "reasonable doubt" comes into play on the facts.
Yea, and i'm not making any grand statements or anything. Just what my experience was. I as a Juror felt woefully under prepared. It was kinda alarming, to be honest. They explicitly didn't want you to research the law even during the process, so they did want you (me) under prepared and "fresh".. but that didn't really mitigate the unease.
And under no circumstances do they want you to hear about jury nullification ... :D
(The system actually works pretty well, and has been developed over long periods of time.)
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lying in court is not a crime. You need to be under oath to be able to commit perjury, e.g. by being a witness who is giving testimony which in turn will be used as evidence. Everyone else can lie as much as they want without fear of repercussions.
In the US, attorneys are officers of the court. They are forbidden from lying to the court at all times. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
Did noone here read the article? It says the defendants were the ones who were lying. The attorneys just tried to cast doubt on the evidence, which was at best exacerbated by the defendant's claims.
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, attorneys are officers of the court. They are forbidden from lying to the court at all times. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
Did noone here read the article? It says the defendants were the ones who were lying. The attorneys just tried to cast doubt on the evidence, which was at best exacerbated by the defendant's claims.
The discussion evolved beyond the article.
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're going to create a deepfake of witness testimony in front of a live jury? How does that work? Witness testimony is trivially fabricated. It happens all the time in court. The solution is to rebut it, not ban it. > But they did have something to say in response to that: Deepfakes are cheap and easy to create. That's not a reasonable response, any more than "I saw him shoot the person" can't be rebutted with a…
> Witness testimony is trivially fabricated. It happens all the time in court. The solution is to rebut it, not ban it. Witness testimony is under oath. You can lie, but then you can go to jail. And you can be cross-examined, unlike a video. The risk of punishment reduces the incentive to lie and the interactivity increases the potential for it to be discovered. Witnesses also have varying credibility. If the witness…
they do have the burden of doing that, to the satisfaction of the jury
if all elmu has to say in response is "well maybe it's a deepfake, but I won't say if I think it is", obviously any jury would be hard pressed to suppress their pressing giggles before rejecting such a weak excuse
Re: People are trying to claim real videos are deepfakes
#180"Tesla lawyers argue Musk cannot be held accountable for public statements [about car safety] because anyone could have made a deepfake of Musk, so no public statements can be taken seriously." Court laughs.
A more realistic defense would be that Musk is a clown and all statements he makes are intended to incite laughter rather than be taken seriously.
They have used this defense before in his various spats with the FTC.