The deceased’s sister wrote the script. AI/LLMs didnt write anything. It’s in the article. So the assumptions you made for the middle two paragraphs dont really apply to this specific news article.
No? This is literally a Victim Impact Statement. We see these all the time after the case has determined guilt and before sentencing. This is the opportunity granted to the victims to outline how they feel on the matter.
There have been countless court cases where the victims say things like “I know that my husband would have understood and forgiven [… drone on for a 6 page essay]” or even done this exact thing, but without the “AI” video/audio (home videos with dubbed overlay of a loved one talking about what the deceased person would want/think about it). It’s not abnormal and has been accepted as a way for the aggrieved to voice their wishes to the court. All that’s changed here was the presentation. This didn’t affect the finding of if the person was guilty as it was played after the finding and was only played before sentencing. This is also the customary time where impact statements are made. The “AI” didn’t make the script. This is just a mildly fancier impact statement and that’s it. She could have dubbed it over home video with a fiverr voice actor. Would that change how you feel about it? I see no evidence that the court treated this anything different than any other impact statement. I don’t think anyone would be fooled that the dead person is magically alive and directly making the statement. It’s clear who made it the whole time.
The deceased’s sister wrote the script. AI/LLMs didnt write anything. It’s in the article. So the assumptions you made for the middle two paragraphs dont really apply to this specific news article.
i was responding to the questions posted in the comment i replied to.
also, doesn’t that make this entire thing worse?
No? This is literally a Victim Impact Statement. We see these all the time after the case has determined guilt and before sentencing. This is the opportunity granted to the victims to outline how they feel on the matter.
There have been countless court cases where the victims say things like “I know that my husband would have understood and forgiven [… drone on for a 6 page essay]” or even done this exact thing, but without the “AI” video/audio (home videos with dubbed overlay of a loved one talking about what the deceased person would want/think about it). It’s not abnormal and has been accepted as a way for the aggrieved to voice their wishes to the court. All that’s changed here was the presentation. This didn’t affect the finding of if the person was guilty as it was played after the finding and was only played before sentencing. This is also the customary time where impact statements are made. The “AI” didn’t make the script. This is just a mildly fancier impact statement and that’s it. She could have dubbed it over home video with a fiverr voice actor. Would that change how you feel about it? I see no evidence that the court treated this anything different than any other impact statement. I don’t think anyone would be fooled that the dead person is magically alive and directly making the statement. It’s clear who made it the whole time.
i had no idea this was a thing in american courts. it just seems like an insane thing to include in a murder trial
Those statements come after the trial during the sentencing phase. They’re not used to sway the initial verdict.