photo evidence made with digital cameras should long have been inadmissible in courts
Sworn testimony is admissible in courts. I think the "you can just make evidence up" threshold was passed a few thousand years ago. The courts still, mostly, work.
Yes. One solution to the problem if false testimony was photo evidence...
But I'm less worried about the courts and more about media that might publish photos without realizing they are AI generated - or ordinary people using those cameras without understanding how they work and then not realizing there may be some details in the pictures that are plain fantasy.
Most people I know would understand "the camera comes with a built-in filter" to mean "what the camera photographs isn't what you'd see if you looked". The media publishing misleading (or misleadingly-captioned) photos is a problem as old as print photography.
Comments
Sworn testimony is admissible in courts. I think the "you can just make evidence up" threshold was passed a few thousand years ago. The courts still, mostly, work.
Yes. One solution to the problem if false testimony was photo evidence...
But I'm less worried about the courts and more about media that might publish photos without realizing they are AI generated - or ordinary people using those cameras without understanding how they work and then not realizing there may be some details in the pictures that are plain fantasy.
Most people I know would understand "the camera comes with a built-in filter" to mean "what the camera photographs isn't what you'd see if you looked". The media publishing misleading (or misleadingly-captioned) photos is a problem as old as print photography.