Animate Anyone 2: High-Fidelity Character Image Animation

So I guess we're just about 2 or 3 iterations away from no longer being able to trust video as evidence in a courtroom. Just gotta fix the lighting and facial issues and bam! Precedent will be set.

I think we have already crossed that threshold. There are videos today that you'd have a hard time telling if they are AI generated. Not always, but sometimes.

It's been decades since we haven't been able to blindly trust image and videos in court, image and video manipulation are almost as old as photography and cinema.

And paper documents are still being used on court today despite being trivially counterfeit.

Why so? Because court never trust documents blindly, the defendant can always object that it is fake and try and question their origin. If the concerns are deemed legitimate by the court, the document is going to be rejected (and an investigation will occur and the producer of the fake document will be charged heavily).

What's the digital signature equivalent of yellow ink for printers?

This also vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average juror.

This sounds insulting but it is intended to be a frank statement.

In 4 years of working cases I would estimate 1 in 6 jurors are above the 85-115 IQ range of average intelligence, and maybe half are at or below the 100 line.

Add in that anyone over the age of 55 is on average far more susceptible to deepfake technology simply because they don't have the life experience and perceptual skills needed to discern the tells in the video, and you have a recipe for disaster.

If you are in court and your opponent might use fabricated video evidence against you, you better hope that your jury is younger or that your lawyers and judges have the expertise needed to expose any deepfake technologies like this for what they are, or you might be cooked.

It depends on the court. Typically evidence is shared with the opposing parties before the court assembles. If there is damning evidence like video of you dancing with the Joker, your side will have an opportunity to preview the video, examine it for being deepfaked, and have a chance to either try to exclude it or possibly will let it slide so that your experts can expose it in trial for being a fake, which could be a strong point in your favor.

From my experience juries are not smart, but if you can show them they've been lied to they will destroy the side that lied to them, not to mention the punishments for lawyers that try to use AI technology to obtain verdicts in their favor by deception.

> In 4 years of working cases I would estimate 1 in 6 jurors are above the 85-115 IQ range of average intelligence, and maybe half are at or below the 100 line.

Maybe I'm missing the joke, but isn't IQ meant to follow a normal distribution with a mean/median of 100 with a standard deviation of 15, in which case you'd expect half of jurors to be below 100 and ~15% to be above 115, which is pretty close to what you've seen?

What I mean to say is that if the average intelligence person, especially those over the age of 50-55 is very susceptible to believing deepfake video, then any video you can successfully show a jury of 12 over 50's people will likely fool 1/2 by default, 10/12 more likely than not, and 12/12 at least half the time.

If you're in a case where there is the possibility of deepfakes being used against you, you had better hope that either your jury is mostly in the 25-45 range and above average intelligence or that your lawyer knows how to deal with those videos since they'll get to review them before they are shown.