If AI and deep fakes can listen to a video or audio of a person and then are able to successfully reproduce such person, what does this entail for trials?

It used to be that recording audio or video would give strong information which often would weigh more than witnesses, but soon enough perfect forgery could enter the courtroom just as it’s doing in social media (where you’re not sworn to tell the truth, though the consequences are real)

I know fake information is a problem everywhere, but I started wondering what will happen when it creeps in testimonies.

How will we defend ourselves, while still using real videos or audios as proof? Or are we just doomed?

  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    28 days ago

    I am well aware of what it is. It serves no purpose and provides no benefit.

    Ignoring the fact that hardware signing doesn’t validate inputs as “real”, because it’s entirely possible to replicate the actual signals entering the camera, and the fact that the entire premise by definition would be a terrible power grab by big hardware/software tools, the very obvious way to implement such an approach would be the exact same system as certificate authorities. You have to have actual root certificate signers.

    Blockchain is horseshit and serves no purpose.

    • webghost0101
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      That hardware inputs can be faked is part of my reasoning here because there would be transparency of the source of footage.

      If a reputable journalists fake their own footage and it would be found out their credibility would be gone.

      If they often rely on borrowing footage and don’t fact check it. Credibility will degrade as well.

      Journalist media that does their work and only uses credible sources will thrive.

      My solution isn’t about who or how signature gets created but how ordinary people can check for themselves where a clip within footage originates from.

      I am fine with inventing a new system that does this and call it something else than blockchain. But my understanding is that it does pretty much provide this functionality in a robust manner.

      Also typing these comments on the go caused me to lose something dear to me on public transport. I am very sad now and probably wont engage further.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        28 days ago

        Again, you have to completely ignore that the core premise is evil intended to give big players even stronger monopoly control. It’s anti-free in every sense, and as an added bonus, would very certainly make possession of specific hardware sufficient to be executed in some countries, because everything it has ever captured would be tracked to it.

        But if you do that, there is already a system that does exactly what you’re asking. You don’t need to invent anything. It’s certificate authorities.

        I’m not actually trying to be an asshole, though I’m sure I’m coming off as one. But the only thing blockchain actually does is validate transactions. It’s a shared ledger.

        • webghost0101
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          28 days ago

          Sure i’ll have a look at decentralized certificate authorities options.

          Very possibles to adapt my idea to whatever technology provides those function honestly.

          The only actual connection i have with blockchain is that reading about it when it was new directly inspired in me a possible way to combat fake news.