this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
259 points (82.1% liked)

Technology

59237 readers
3524 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
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
259
A bride to be discovers a reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography (appleinsider.com)
submitted 11 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A U.K. woman was photographed standing in a mirror where her reflections didn't match, but not because of a glitch in the Matrix. Instead, it's a simple iPhone computational photography mistake.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This was important in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. The zoom resolution was interpolated by software. It wasn't AI per se, but the fact that a jury couldn't be relied upon to understand a black box algorithm and its possible artifacts, the zoomed video was disallowed.

(this in no way implies that I agree with the court.)

[–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The zoom resolution was interpolated by software. It wasn't AI per se

Except it was. All the "AI" junk being hyped and peddled all over the place as a completely new and modern innovation is really just the same old interpolation by software, albeit software which is fueled by bigger databases and with more computing power thrown at it.

It's all just flashier autocorrect.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

As far as I know, nothing about AI entered into arguments. No precedents regarding AI could have been set here. Therefore, this case wasn't about AI per se.

I did bring it up as relevant because, as you say, AI is just an over-hyped black box. But that's my opinion, with no case law to cite (ianal). So to say that a court would or should feel that AI and fancy photoediting is the same thing is misleading. I know that wasn't your point, but it was part of mine.

[–] wagoner@infosec.pub 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I watched that whole court exchange live, and it helped the defendant's case that the judge was computer illiterate.

[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

As it usually does. But the court's ineptitude should favor the defense. It shouldn't be an arrow in a prosecutor's quiver, at least.