For me, this kind of thing is still very surreal. I'm old enough that I grew up in a "not connected" world. We used pay phones and land lines. It was considered rude to do anything significant over the phone.
I'm still having trouble with people being laid off over a video call. A capital trial with the death sentence being a possibility happening on a video chat just seems like I've jumped into some dystopian sci-fi.
Dystopia isn't guaranteed; don't go gentle into that good night.
Highly recommend reading "On Tyranny", it's a great small, pertinent book for $10 at most book stores.
Edit: to be clear China's social credit system is extremely dystopian to me and is already taking shape, but I trust most/all democratic societies (including US) to fend it off.
Trend of using Zoom/variants seems to be following the progression of any similar type of conduit where unfamiliar use case eventually becomes the norm. For example, when texting/SMS took off in early 2000s, boyfriends and girlfriends started calling quits to their relationship via text, followed by husbands and wives decision to divorce. I won’t be surprised if there’s an emoji for such references nowadays ️. Oh the humans! We’ve definitely done a lot of physical evolving since inception...but bulk of our social evolution has seemed to have happened over the past 100 years.
On the one hand it shouldn't matter. The facts of the case are the facts of the case. If those facts warrant the death penalty then that should be the case regardless of the medium through which those facts are presented.
On the other hand, humans aren't rational and they might change their decision by seeing another human in person vs seeing them on a screen, even if the facts are the same.
Since it has the capability to affect the outcome, for fairness it should be the same for every case. Either do all cases over Zoom or none. Otherwise you might have some people arbitrarily assigned the death penalty when they might not have otherwise or vice versa.
The better solution would be to do away with the death penalty altogether since such a dire outcome shouldn't be implemented by an inherently flawed and fallible system.
I would say that it doesn’t make a difference. It’s more likely to sentence someone to death who is considered “them”. As evidenced by the increased likelihood that a minority will be sentenced to death in the US and how prosecutors go out of their way to get all White jurors when prosecuting minorities.
I know it would matter to me. That would at least help make the case that the person being condemned is a human being, not a few pixels on a screen, nor a number in a system.
If the system can't figure out your judge is actually a puppet by the time the appeals process (which is being sought) starts or is denied then I don't think the problem is really "deepfakes".
It's incredible to me how Microsoft was able to blow that chance with Skype. Just a while ago Skype used to be the generic trademark. "I'm skyping with my girlfriend"
It probably means your company was successful enough that you can retire and do whatever you like for the rest of your life. Would be a good thing for me, although probably a bad thing for the company as a whole.
I'd call it a best worst thing - one of those problems where it's bad, but the only way to have the problem is to be really successful.
I'm still having trouble with people being laid off over a video call. A capital trial with the death sentence being a possibility happening on a video chat just seems like I've jumped into some dystopian sci-fi.