Videos are now basically have the same weights as words, no longer a “smoking gun”. Videos basically become like eyewitness testimony, well… its slightly better as it protect against misremembering or people with inadequate lexicon and unable to clearly articulate what they saw. The process wil become: get the witness to testify they had posession of the camera, was recording at the time of incident, and they believe the video being presented in court is genuine and have not been altered, then its basically a video version of their eyewitness testimony. The credibility of the video is now tied to the witness/camera-person’s own credibility, and should not be evaluated as an independent evidence, but the jury should treat the video as the witnese’s own words, meaning, they should factor in the possibility the witness faked it.
A video you see on the internet is now just as good as just a bunch of text, both equally unreliable.
Videos are now basically have the same weights as words…
We live in a post-truth world now.
It’s interesting that you start with a bold statement that is IMHO correct, namely that namely what was once taken as unquestionable truth now isn’t, but also it’s not new, just yet another media, but still conclude that it’s different.
Arguably we were already in a post-truth World, always have been, it only extends to a medium we considered too costly to fake until now. The principle is still the same.
I’m just thinking, people thought Americans were faking the moon landing, we’ve always had conspiracy theorists. AI just spins them faster and sloppier, let’s go back to humans lying to humans than a computer taught to lie and advertise by humans to do the same thing
And that’s perfect, that’s the world that made all the due process and similar things evolve.
There’s never been such a thing as independent evidence. The medium has always mattered. And when people started believing this is no more true, we’ve almost gotten ourselves a new planetary fascist empire, I hope we’re still in time to stop that.
If there’s an edit that alters a detail that doesn’t matter to the witness, it probably isn’t important. And that kind of replacement is hard to do at scale without getting caught.
Videos are now basically have the same weights as words, no longer a “smoking gun”. Videos basically become like eyewitness testimony, well… its slightly better as it protect against misremembering or people with inadequate lexicon and unable to clearly articulate what they saw. The process wil become: get the witness to testify they had posession of the camera, was recording at the time of incident, and they believe the video being presented in court is genuine and have not been altered, then its basically a video version of their eyewitness testimony. The credibility of the video is now tied to the witness/camera-person’s own credibility, and should not be evaluated as an independent evidence, but the jury should treat the video as the witnese’s own words, meaning, they should factor in the possibility the witness faked it.
A video you see on the internet is now just as good as just a bunch of text, both equally unreliable.
We live in a post-truth world now.
It’s interesting that you start with a bold statement that is IMHO correct, namely that namely what was once taken as unquestionable truth now isn’t, but also it’s not new, just yet another media, but still conclude that it’s different.
Arguably we were already in a post-truth World, always have been, it only extends to a medium we considered too costly to fake until now. The principle is still the same.
I’m just thinking, people thought Americans were faking the moon landing, we’ve always had conspiracy theorists. AI just spins them faster and sloppier, let’s go back to humans lying to humans than a computer taught to lie and advertise by humans to do the same thing
And that’s perfect, that’s the world that made all the due process and similar things evolve.
There’s never been such a thing as independent evidence. The medium has always mattered. And when people started believing this is no more true, we’ve almost gotten ourselves a new planetary fascist empire, I hope we’re still in time to stop that.
A hacker may have replaced the authentic video in the phone. The edit must be unnoticeable to the eyewitness who shot it.
If there’s an edit that alters a detail that doesn’t matter to the witness, it probably isn’t important. And that kind of replacement is hard to do at scale without getting caught.