All of these have massive error rates (for various reasons, but simply that it’s an uncontrolled environment with potentially bias data collectors & scientists opens lots of issues).
I agree better laws should be in place, but I suspect the there may be less issues with “enhance” than many of the items listed above.
But that would be a fault in logic - not treating Bayesian contexts (of priors and posteriors) properly, outside a solid framework. Which should be a recognized part of the process.
Not many centuries ago a form called "spectral evidence" was used, according to which that the victim stated that the suspect appeared to them in dreams and fantasies was valid evidence - it was used in the Salem witch trials, for example.
It is possible to see a definite lack of "good common sense". (And a parallel title on the HN frontpage today goes "[Autoconf] makes me think we stopped evolving too soon".)
This said,
> there may be less issues with “enhance” than many of the items listed above
one thing is imperfect measurement and false positives, another hallucinating details...