Netflix Doc Accused of Using AI To Manipulate True Crime Story 24
Earlier this week, Netflix found itself embroiled in an AI scandal when Futurism spotted AI-generated images used in the Netflix documentary What Jennifer Did.. The movie's credits do not mention any uses of AI, causing critics to call out the filmmakers for "potentially embellishing a movie that's supposed to be based on real-life events," reports Ars Technica. An executive producer of the Netflix hit acknowledged that some of the photos were edited to protect the identity of the source but remained vague about whether AI was used in the process. From the report: What Jennifer Did shot to the top spot in Netflix's global top 10 when it debuted in early April, attracting swarms of true crime fans who wanted to know more about why Pan paid hitmen $10,000 to murder her parents. But quickly the documentary became a source of controversy, as fans started noticing glaring flaws in images used in the movie, from weirdly mismatched earrings to her nose appearing to lack nostrils, the Daily Mail reported, in a post showing a plethora of examples of images from the film. [...]
Jeremy Grimaldi -- who is also the crime reporter who wrote a book on the case and provided the documentary with research and police footage -- told the Toronto Star that the images were not AI-generated. Grimaldi confirmed that all images of Pan used in the movie were real photos. He said that some of the images were edited, though, not to blur the lines between truth and fiction, but to protect the identity of the source of the images. "Any filmmaker will use different tools, like Photoshop, in films," Grimaldi told The Star. "The photos of Jennifer are real photos of her. The foreground is exactly her. The background has been anonymized to protect the source." While Grimaldi's comments provide some assurance that the photos are edited versions of real photos of Pan, they are also vague enough to obscure whether AI was among the "different tools" used to edit the photos.
Jeremy Grimaldi -- who is also the crime reporter who wrote a book on the case and provided the documentary with research and police footage -- told the Toronto Star that the images were not AI-generated. Grimaldi confirmed that all images of Pan used in the movie were real photos. He said that some of the images were edited, though, not to blur the lines between truth and fiction, but to protect the identity of the source of the images. "Any filmmaker will use different tools, like Photoshop, in films," Grimaldi told The Star. "The photos of Jennifer are real photos of her. The foreground is exactly her. The background has been anonymized to protect the source." While Grimaldi's comments provide some assurance that the photos are edited versions of real photos of Pan, they are also vague enough to obscure whether AI was among the "different tools" used to edit the photos.
Hey now, Brosie was eaten by cannibals (Score:2)
And that was DEFINITELY a crime.
A hiring manager at Netflix slipped a nugget (Score:2)
During an interview. A problem Netflix had to solve was how to version movies. He then went on to describe an Easter egg that was added to stranger things. Made me think of what else they are changing without telling us. But this is a consequence of not owning your content, and why pirating is picking up with more force these days. That and the ludicrous pricing.
How would AI edit photos? (Score:3)
Re:How would AI edit photos? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do you people think it was poorly edited and anonymized photos by AI and not a person? It's pretty normal to edit photos in these situations for the reasons outlined in the article.
AI has become the big evil; so even if it is used to do what used to be done with other tools the result is somehow bad. CGI, Photoshop, AI are just one set of tools used in moviemaking, and can be used well or poorly and the results are all that really counts. Using any of them to change a story while claiming to present facts is a separate issue form whether or not any of those tools were used.
Re:How would AI edit photos? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. It's just bad sensationalistic journalism about the big bad AI boogeyman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like film studios actually want AI and actors hate it.
...and viewers don't give a fuck either way. They just want content.
Very few people care which tools were used in making things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing except the Slashdot headline seems to indicate they changed the story. They just edited some crappy snapshots. Aledgedly to hide whoever was slipping the filmmaker personal photos from a girl who tried to kill her parents.
Clearly we need a law. All TV shows must consist of slideshows of unedited crappy snapshots.
Re: How would AI edit photos? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't believe what those younguns are getting up to in the darkroom.
Re:How would AI edit photos? (Score:4, Funny)
I remember some of the early "real crime" shows where they'd show information about some crime, do a re-enactment of the theorized crime, and such, while asking for help solving the case.
They routinely got lots and lots of calls from people spotting the actor in the re-enactment doing the criminal acts. Despite publishing what pictures they had of the actual suspect and clearly putting before the re-enactment "Warning: These is a re-enactment with paid actors, not the actual people involved". The warnings clearly weren't enough to disassociate the actors from the actual criminal in many/most people's minds.
So I can easily see the need to change up faces, even if that isn't the exact situation here.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing except the Slashdot headline seems to indicate they changed the story. They just edited some crappy snapshots. Aledgedly to hide whoever was slipping the filmmaker personal photos from a girl who tried to kill her parents.
Clearly we need a law. All TV shows must consist of slideshows of unedited crappy snapshots.
Yup. Typical slashdot headline; all tjat is missing is “reason ten will amaze you” TFA was clear the reason, as you point out, and nothing was nefarious.
Re: (Score:1)
OK ... So what? Do the credits mention Photoshop? Or what software you used to edit the video? Or what operating system is on the computer you used to edit the video?
This is a stupid complaint and a stupid non-story.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the credits mention Photoshop?
I think I've seen the special effects software mentioned a few times, probably as a form of advertising for it.
But before photoshop (and similar) you had "airbrushing" and more. The tools just changed and became more sophisticated. Anything I see in a magazine, for example, I figure was heavily edited.
There's certainly no need to mention your special effects and finishing tools.
Re: (Score:2)
And right now what a person editing can do is to actually ask an AI to do the job in 30 seconds instead of spending an hour trying to "perfect" the image needed.
In 30 seconds I was able to make a picture with Taylor Swift on the ISS. (just to create an obviously fake improbable image)
After all - it's probably some AI images out there because the person tasked with the image editing task was lazy or had a too large queue for incoming work and thought that nobody would care.
After all - is it worth to care in
Re:How would AI edit photos? (Score:5, Informative)
Probably because the hands and fingers [petapixel.com] are fucked up in the exact same way that AI always fucks up hands and fingers.
A human told to edit an image to "protect the anonymity of the source" wouldn't start off thinking "I know... I'll remove one finger from the right hand and three from the left, then fuck up the palms to make it look like the fingers became blobby tumors."
Re: (Score:2)
Because one hand has seven fingers and the other three.
Mixed up the nose rings? (Score:2)
Funny (Score:3)
Does anyone actually think "inspired by real-life events" means anything?
I thought it was commonly accepted that it's about as meaningless as "once upon a time."
Nothing new under the Sun... (Score:2)
...I mean, after the black Cleopatra, the criminal (she was sentenced) Amber Heard "purity", etc. documentals Netflix has produced...
did this new be "unexpected" to anybody?