Maybe use the word “falsify”?
Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
51–60 of 210 posts
Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in the US? Probably a large double-digit percentage of cases imo…
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
If you believe parallel construction should be illegal (it sure seems like it is unconstitutional to me), then 100% of prosecutions that rely on it are unjust. I don't think anyone truly knows how common it is, though, and that's by design. Double-digits wouldn't shock me at all.
Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in the US? Probably a large double-digit percentage of cases imo…
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
Shouldn't it be the exact opposite here ? The burden of proof is the other way around.
The big claim is here: the state has grandiose claims that the overwhelming majority is fair, but there is no proof of it.
Therefore the state should prove that more than 90% of the cases are legitimate, fair, not coerced, and not motivated by the pressure to interrupt the proceedings.
97% of people choose plea deals or out-of-court settlement, it is a huge amount.
It means that in real practice, not imaginary internet, people who face court consider that justice is a big machine that can crush you no matter if you are innocent or not.
In the best case you are acquitted at the end, but you are guaranteed to bear the financial burden, fear and stress as a punishment.
Being held in jail before trial is a very convincing reason to plea deal too.
It's a system engineered to make pleading the only reasonable option, no matter if you did anything or not.
Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider all of that can be used for forced confessions and forced plea bargains also. In those cases, the "evidence" doesn't even need to exist at all, or be on the record in any way.
Let alone all it takes is a photo and a voice clip of 10sec to create an imitation of that person confessing to whatever your heart desires.
An old phone book is enough.
Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
When DNA matching was introduced, we discovered that at minimum 10% of people on death row were innocent. Death row cases are among the most litigated and examined cases. So, 10% is a reasonable floor, and we're already in double digits.
> This reasonably sets a floor I disagree wrt reasonableness. It’s just too big a leap. There are a lot of crimes, and not many land you on death row.
Hoo boy, welcome to the history of the United states.
Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should see what people were capable of in the darkroom, let alone before all this. You could always manipulate imagery ever since there was imagery to manipulate.
We've gone from highly skilled people being able to forge some specific photos and documents using substantial time/energy/resources, to any asshole being able to generate realistic full-motion video in minutes. I get that there is a certain type of moron who thinks that the collapse in cost of misinformation has no harm... but all you've done is announce to the world that you are a moron.
It is really not any different. People would throw a hubcap in the air and pitch it as a UFO photo and idiots would latch on to that. You could take a photo of the empire state building and use a double exposure to make it look like you were king kong. Kids were doing this sort of stuff. Stop motion home movies where you'd look like you were levitating or your head got cut off.
It always comes down to provenance.
Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should see what people were capable of in the darkroom, let alone before all this. You could always manipulate imagery ever since there was imagery to manipulate.
How many people could do that? How long did it take? Now it’s a lot easier and faster
Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should see what people were capable of in the darkroom, let alone before all this. You could always manipulate imagery ever since there was imagery to manipulate.
This is why: - the whole roll of negatives was prime evidence; - police forces were one of the biggest users of Polaroid instant film. And moreover, who had a darkroom and the skills to edit substantially a picture? Whereas here we have nobodies being able to generate pixel-perfect fake "evidence" from the computers they already have.
Plenty of people. If you have running water, some tape, and trashbags, you too could have a darkroom.
https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/objects/objects@exhibi...
The roll itself can be manipulated too. Most of the techniques used in modern photoshop are basically 1:1 carry overs of darkroom processes. Layers, dodge and burn, masking, etc.
There was a time you could take this class in highschool.
Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here in the US? Probably a large double-digit percentage of cases imo…
> large double-digit percentage This is a very very intense claim, and if true, would represent a monumental institutional failure across hundreds or even thousands of disparate organizations. Do you have any data to support your hunch? Strong claims require strong evidence.
A few years ago, one of my coworkers was arrested for a domestic violence complaint. Looking into his case, I found an extremely specific lurid description of the allegations -- and then I found the same lurid description copy/pasted to every other person recently arrested for the same crime. I'm probably getting the specific terms wrong, but I did click through to see it on a government website, because my first suspicion was the aggregator, but no, the police just had a boilerplate story full of specifics which could not possibly apply to each and every person they carelessly slapped it onto. This absolutely blew my mind at the time, but it fits with smaller subsequent observations. In any case: a double digit percentage of institutional failure does not upset my priors about how carefully the police operate.
Re: Police officer investigated for using AI to 'create evidence' in multiple cases
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should see what people were capable of in the darkroom, let alone before all this. You could always manipulate imagery ever since there was imagery to manipulate.
Big difference between that and writing an AI prompt.
Not really. End result is the same: manipulated image.