alt Hacker NewsIf it "was AI" it should be easy enough for him to prove by pulling up his account on whatever AI video generation service he used and showing the generation in his account history.
(I do not think it was AI.)
Replies
Maybe he doesn't have to prove that though. If he can find an expert witness who will make claims that based on their expert analysis it is possible this video is AI generated, and he does not testify himself, then that may be enough to introduce reasonable doubt.
But shouldn't it be the prosecution proving the video is real?
Also I’d be surprised if the only evidence introduced by the prosecution is the video. There may be other eyewitnesses, evidence of equipment usage, communications with others prior to the event about his intent, and so forth.
I don't think it was AI either but I don't think that would hold up in court.
True, and I agree with you on it not being AI, however, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not for a defendant to prove innocence.
But you are correct, if it was in fact AI, showing how he (or someone else) made it at the time would certainly help get him off the hook.
Guy could've probably picked a better place to base jump anyway, national parks are notorious for having a billion laws that don't really exist anywhere else.
You can't even take your cat white river rafting on the grand canyon >:( https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/7.4