←back to thread

Animate Anyone 2: High-Fidelity Character Image Animation

(humanaigc.github.io)
166 points ToJans | 1 comments | 16 Feb 25 11:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.216s | source
Show context
lacoolj ◴[20 Feb 25 18:52 UTC] No.43118558[source]▶
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.
replies(4): >>43118990 #>>43119754 #>>43120129 #>>43120378 #
littlestymaar ◴[20 Feb 25 20:29 UTC] No.43119754[source]▶
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).

replies(1): >>43120442 #
1. BizarroLand ◴[20 Feb 25 21:27 UTC] No.43120442[source]▶
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.