232
Why isn't everyone talking about AI generated audiobooks?
(reddthat.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
232 points (94.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43982 readers
644 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Once the tech is that good, a recording of your confession will be useless as evidence in court.
...but it is already that good? The fact that celebrities are having to come out and say it wasn't them in an ad is proof enough that it can fool people
You only need to fool a jury
Then we'll have to take more care with how jury trials are conducted. It's always been possible to fool juries, that's often a lawyer's entire strategy.
That got me thinking about when we'll hear the first case of AI generated security camera footage used to frame someone. Which leads me to wonder when it will be standard procedure for cameras to digitally sign their footage.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/10/leicas-9125-camera-automatically-stores-authenticity-proving-metadata/
The first stills camera that digitally signs its photos is here. Leica is part of a tech consortium developing this as a standard and other major photography brands are also members, so hopefully this catches on and becomes standard, and expands to video.
There it is. Thanks for sharing.
Everything will be useless in court. Audio evidence? Worthless. Video evidence? Worthless. Physical evidence? Prove that it wasnt planted. That kind of AI is a fucking nightmare and no one really understands the danger that kind of AI poses.
AI can't tamper with physical evidence. It can't fake financial records or witness testimony. Many kinds of audio and visual recordings will still have sufficient authentication and chain of custody to be worthwhile.
The main kind of evidence that these AI generators makes untenable are the ones where someone just shows up and says "look at this video of X confessing to Y that I happen to have," which was never a particularly good sort of evidence to base a court case on to begin with.
Witness testimony is already a very unreliable source of evidence. And again, evidence can be planted. Hell there was doubt about the chain of custody before AI could just make up audio and video. The validity of the chain of custody boils down to the cops and government in general being trusted enough to not falsify it when it suits them.
Sufficiently advanced AI can, and eventually will, be capable of creating deepfakes that cant reliably be proven to be false. Every test that can be done to authenticate that media can be used by the AI to select generated media that would pass scrutiny in principle.
I love the optimism and I hope you're right but I don't think you are. I think that deepfake AI should scare people a whole lot more than it does.
There are ways to cryptographically validate chain of custody. If we're in a world where only video with valid chain of custody can be used in court then those methods will see widespread adoption. You also didn't address any of the other kinds of evidence that I mentioned AI being unable to tamper with. Sure, you can generate a video of someone doing something horrible. But in a world where it is known that you can generate such videos, what jury would ever convict someone based solely on a video like that? It's frankly ridiculous.
This is very much the typical fictional dystopia scenario where one assumes all the possible negative uses of the technology will work fine but ignore all the ways of being able to counter those negative uses. You can spin a scary sci-fi tale from such speculation but it's not really a useful way of predicting how the actual future is likely to go.