• Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    WTF?

    That man did not say anything. A computer algorithm smashed a video together they incidentally uses his likeness, nothing more

  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    There is absolutely zero chance I would allow anyone to theorize what they think I would say using AI. Hell, I don’t like AI in its current state, and that’s the least of my issues with this.

    It’s immoral. Regardless of your relation to a person, you shouldn’t be acting like you know what they would say, let alone using that to sway a decision in a courtroom. Unless he specifically wrote something down and it was then recited using the AI, this is absolutely wrong.

    It’s selfish. They used his likeness to make an apology they had no possible way of knowing, and they did it to make themselves feel better. They couldve wrote a letter with their own voices instead of turning this into some weird dystopian spectacle.

    “It’s just an impact statement.”

    Welcome to the slippery slope, folks. We allow use of AI into courtrooms, and not even for something cool (like quickly producing a 3d animation of a car accident for use in explaining—with actual human voices—what happened at the scene). Instead, we use it to sway a judge’s sentencing, while also making an apology on behalf of a dead person (using whatever tech you want because that is not the main problem here) without their consent or even any of their written (you know, like in a will) thoughts.

    Pointing to “AI bad” for these arguments is lazy, reductive, and not even remotely the main gripe.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      allow use of AI into courtrooms

      Surprised the judge didn’t kick that shit to the curb. There was one case where the defendant made an AI avatar, with AI generated text, to represent himself and the judge said, “Fuck outta here with that nonsense.”

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      There is absolutely zero chance I would allow anyone to theorize what they think I would say using AI.

      If they based it on my Reddit history it’s got potential to be needlessly harsh to certain groups of life-underachievers, that’s for sure.

  • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    191
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Why would a judge allow this? It’s like showing the jury a made-for-TV movie based on the trial they’re hearing.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      153
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not only did he allow it,

      While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video, Pelkey’s family said, noting the judge even referred to the video in his statement.

      It has about as much evidentiary value as a ouija board, but since the victim was a veteran and involved with a church and the judge likes those things we can ignore pesky little things like standards of proof and prejudice

      • xorollo@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Arizona State professor of law Gary Marchant said the use of AI has become more common in courts.

        “If you look at the facts of this case, I would say that the value of it overweighed the prejudicial effect, but if you look at other cases, you could imagine where they would be very prejudicial,” he told AZFamily.

        Could you imagine how prejudicial such a thing might be? Not here, of course. /S

      • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        So the original comment is just dumb because they couldn’t be bothered to read the article, but upvotes it gets.

  • illi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Ok, so his family believed he would forgive, wrote statement for him and made AI make it look like the victim said it. And this is somehow relevant to the court? It’s all nice the family thinks this but what has it got with justice?

  • besselj@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’d rather have somebody puppet my corpse like in Weekend at Bernie’s. Basically the same thing but more authentic

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Unless stated otherwise, please do not use my likeness for legal proceedings on the event of my untimely passing. Please.

  • butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I swear to Christ, if I get murdered and my family makes an AI video of me forgiving them then I will haunt the shit out of them.

  • LWD@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    An AI version of Christopher Pelkey appeared in an eerily realistic video to forgive his killer… “In another life, we probably could’ve been friends. I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives.”

    The message was well-received by Judge Todd Lang, who told the courtroom, “I love that AI."

    While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video.

    • HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Society is on the verge of total collapse

      EDIT: I am reading this over multiple times, and I think the judge is being sarcastic

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      How does that even make sense?

      Wouldn’t you lower the sentence if the victim AI says it forgives the killer? Because - you know - it significantly reduces the “revenge” angle the American justice system is based on?

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is awesome. Next we can have AI Jesus endorsing Trump, AI Nicole Simpson telling us who the real killer was, and AI Abraham Lincoln saying that whole Civil War thing was a big misunderstanding and the Confederacy was actually just fine. The possibilities are endless. I can hardly wait!

  • JTskulk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Why even do an impact statement? All Christian victims should be assumed to forgive their attackers, right?

  • LostWanderer@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Eww, that’s such a ghoulish thing to do; letting a distortion of a dead person, that could never act as the deceased person, forgive their killer. Do they even know if he would’ve done this if he had a say before being killed?