Comment by BizarroLand
2 days ago
This also vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average juror.
This sounds insulting but it is intended to be a frank statement.
In 4 years of working cases I would estimate 1 in 6 jurors are above the 85-115 IQ range of average intelligence, and maybe half are at or below the 100 line.
Add in that anyone over the age of 55 is on average far more susceptible to deepfake technology simply because they don't have the life experience and perceptual skills needed to discern the tells in the video, and you have a recipe for disaster.
If you are in court and your opponent might use fabricated video evidence against you, you better hope that your jury is younger or that your lawyers and judges have the expertise needed to expose any deepfake technologies like this for what they are, or you might be cooked.
> In 4 years of working cases I would estimate 1 in 6 jurors are above the 85-115 IQ range of average intelligence, and maybe half are at or below the 100 line.
Maybe I'm missing the joke, but isn't IQ meant to follow a normal distribution with a mean/median of 100 with a standard deviation of 15, in which case you'd expect half of jurors to be below 100 and ~15% to be above 115, which is pretty close to what you've seen?
What I mean to say is that if the average intelligence person, especially those over the age of 50-55 is very susceptible to believing deepfake video, then any video you can successfully show a jury of 12 over 50's people will likely fool 1/2 by default, 10/12 more likely than not, and 12/12 at least half the time.
If you're in a case where there is the possibility of deepfakes being used against you, you had better hope that either your jury is mostly in the 25-45 range and above average intelligence or that your lawyer knows how to deal with those videos since they'll get to review them before they are shown.