Hacker News Reader

Comment by ImprobableTruth | Hacker News Reader

This is just pivoting. In this case zooming uses interpolation which "has the potential to introduce false information" exactly as you mentioned. It using only the available data doesn't mean that interpolation can't go wrong. So what if it's not AI?

And yes, it's so well understood that the prosecution had no idea of what's going on, claiming that it's "common sense" that it works just like a magnifying glass, which is simply wrong. Using bilinear (or bicubic) interpolation makes the edges of an image blurrier, especially when you're zooming in as much as they did on low-quality footage.

View on HN

Come now, you're reaching. The defence attorney specifically claimed that "iPads, which are made by Apple, have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three dimensions and logarithms." and "[The iPad] uses artificial intelligence or their logarithms to create what they believe is happening. So this isn't actually enhanced video; this is Apple's iPad programming creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there."

Aside from the confusion about logarithms, where I presume he meant algorithms, and the false claim about 3D, the defence was making a claim about artificial intelligence being used to upscale the footage. Which is inaccurate, and a specific claim being made that's unsupported by any evidence.

Funny enough, the same sort of question arose with regard to a crime scene image that was enlarged by the state's forensic lab, but a simple explanation of the mechanism used was deemed sufficient.

> Aside from the confusion about logarithms, where I presume he meant algorithms, and the false claim about 3D, the defence was making a claim about artificial intelligence being used to upscale the footage. Which is inaccurate, and a specific claim being made that's unsupported by any evidence.

With AI being used in ever more parts of technology, it is not surprising that a layperson wants to clarify if such technology is being applied here.

Apple has been advertising the usage of AI in dealing with photos ("Deep Fusion" of 2019 IIRC), so the suspicion is warranted.

I think you may want to read the transcript.

Also, things like Deep Fusion are capture-time technologies, they don't alter the photo or video each time it's viewed. There's also already precedent in US courts for handling automatic enhancements applied to digital camera evidence.

Great. So the zoom feature is showing information fabricated at capture time. How does that help?

> Also, things like Deep Fusion are capture-time technologies, they don't alter the photo or video each time it's viewed.

We know that. A random old judge? Any random you pick on the street for a survey? Probably not. All they heard is something about AI and photos.

And recently made a huge deal about applying it to video in newer phones.

I'm reaching? Like, why would the defense's wrong argument be relevant? You're not arguing with the defense here.

Your claim was that the judge's call is wrong because zooming doesn't actually do interpolation and has thus no potential to introduce wrong information. I've told you that zooming in this case does interpolate and that interpolation has the potential to go wrong.

When interpolation goes wrong it’s predictably wrong, which is not true of more complex algorithms using AI. If we can predict how it goes wrong we can extract the meaningful information from it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com