There are only 144 Bytes in a PhotoDNA hash and they are used to identify the whole picture. This is definitely not enough data to identify a face reliably.
The proposed AI does not identify people and it will not report that it "found" the person in the training data. It does not know. And it won't tell you.
Assume twins, one is in the training data, one isn't. The one in the training data has a scar, the other one does not. We "invert" a picture of the twin without the scar and who is not in the training set. As you explained, the resulting image will have the twin from the data set including a highly detailed picture of the scar. And for some reason, that is a good thing.
You are attributing more to this AI than it conceivably can do. Even going as far as finding an excuse for putting false or unfounded data.
It is tremendously important to make clear: most (if not all) of current AI technology is not fit for forensic analysis beyond guiding humans in their own analysis.
The proposed AI does not identify people and it will not report that it "found" the person in the training data. It does not know. And it won't tell you.
Assume twins, one is in the training data, one isn't. The one in the training data has a scar, the other one does not. We "invert" a picture of the twin without the scar and who is not in the training set. As you explained, the resulting image will have the twin from the data set including a highly detailed picture of the scar. And for some reason, that is a good thing.
You are attributing more to this AI than it conceivably can do. Even going as far as finding an excuse for putting false or unfounded data.
It is tremendously important to make clear: most (if not all) of current AI technology is not fit for forensic analysis beyond guiding humans in their own analysis.