256
A bride to be discovers a reality bending mistake in Apple's computational photography (appleinsider.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
96 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
[–] 25 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I'm still waiting for the first time somebody uses it to zoom in on a car number plate and it helpfully fills it in with some AI bullshit with something else entirely.

We've already seen such a thing with image compression.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/xerox-scanners-alter-numbers-in-scanned-documents/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years 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.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent