These days (2023) AI can produce convincing images and even videos that realistically portray people saying or doing things that they did not actually do. Currently we can employ experts to detect whether such images are genuine or not. However as technology progresses, this will become less-and-less feasible. (Note, my background is in technology)
For example, one established method of making such fakes more realistic is to pit another AI against them. The second AI attempts to distinguish between real and fabricated images. The first AI then learns from this and tries to fool the second AI more effectively, and so on.
This purely machine-based co-evolution can happen very quickly and produces better and better fakes and better and better detectors. At some point, fakes will become so good that even other machines will not be able to detect the difference.
I see two problems with respect to presenting digital evidence in court:
- The guilty can claim that any digital evidence is fake.
- The innocent will be unable to produce any convincing digital alibi and could be portrayed doing something that they did not (perhaps by digitally-altered CCTV footage).
Assuming that there comes a time where digital fakes are completely indistinguishable from reality, how could this affect the working of current court proceedings? (Any justice system may be discussed)
Note In case anyone thinks his cannot be answered objectively, I would counter that I am seeking specific information. I would like to gain an idea of the current usage and perceived importance of digital evidence in criminal proceedings as opposed to witness reports and other non-technological evidence. If technological evidence were no longer trustworthy, what would be left to rely on?