Rape and stupid nonsense…that is all ai is.
WTF?
That man did not say anything. A computer algorithm smashed a video together they incidentally uses his likeness, nothing more
The fuck is wrong with people.
I’m glad I’m not the only one thinking this
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.
Why would a judge allow this? It’s like showing the jury a made-for-TV movie based on the trial they’re hearing.
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
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
Fucking yikes that judge needs to be removed
Twist: the judge used AI to write his sentencing statement. It’s chat bots all the way down.
A horror story in two sentences.
I’ll take ten AI simps over one MAGA ally judge.
Jury duty would be a lot more fun if trials were narrated by the Unsolved Mysteries guy
The trial was already over. This was for the sentencing.
So the original comment is just dumb because they couldn’t be bothered to read the article, but upvotes it gets.
This bring up an interesting question I like to ask my students about AI. A year or so ago, Meta talked about people making personas of themselves for business. Like if a customer needs help, they can do a video chat with an AI that looks like you and is trained to give the responses you need it to. But what if we could do that just for ourselves, but instead let an AI shadow us for a number of years so it essentially can mimic the language we use and thoughts we have enough to effectively stand in for us in casual conversations?
If the murdered victim in this situation had trained his own AI in such a manner, after years of shadowing and training, would that AI be able to mimic its master’s behavior well enough to give its master’s most likely response to this situation? Would the AI in the video have still forgiven the murderer, and would it hold more significant meaning?
If you could snapshot you as you are up to right now, and keep it as a “living photo” A.I. that would behave and talk like you when interacted with, what would you do with it? If you could have a snapshot AI of anyone in the world in a picture frame on your desk, who you could talk to and interact with, who would you choose?
it would hold the same meaning as now, which is nothing.
this is automatic writing with a computer. no matter what you train on, you’re using a machine built to produce things that match other things. the machine can’t hold opinions, can’t remember, can’t answer from the training data. all it can do is generate a plausible transcript of a conversation and steer it with input.
one person does not generate enough data during a lifetime so you’re necessarily using aggregated data from millions of people as a base. there’s also no meaning ascribed to anything in the training data. if you give it all a person’s memories, the output conforms to that data like water conforms to a shower nozzle. it’s just a filter on top.
in regards to the final paragraph, i want computers to exhibit as little personhood as possible because i’ve read the transcript of the ELISA experiments. it literally could only figure out subject-verb-object and respond with the same noun as it was fed, and people were saying it should replace psychologists.
I wouldn’t want to talk to AI either. Just have it send me a voicemail recording of the video, but transcribed into a text, into my spam folder.
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?
But, the Judge, Todd Lang, loved that AI. It was well received. Go figure.
We’re living in a parallel universe now.
Not parallel universes, rather think parallel civilizations co-existing.
The future distopia is now.
It’s all computer!
Why even do an impact statement? All Christian victims should be assumed to forgive their attackers, right?
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.
Who will you haunt? The murderer or your family?
Huh. Everybody I guess?
Damn right. I might haunt everyone that facilitated the video too.
Yeah that seems like a lot of work but it would be deserved. Maybe those that facilitated it on weekdays, only family and killer on Saturday, take Sunday off.
I’d rather have somebody puppet my corpse like in Weekend at Bernie’s. Basically the same thing but more authentic
This is some Weekend at Bernie’s 2 shit.
Unless stated otherwise, please do not use my likeness for legal proceedings on the event of my untimely passing. Please.
It’s too late. There’s like fifty Tetris games.
damn
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.
Society is on the verge of total collapse
EDIT: I am reading this over multiple times, and I think the judge is being sarcastic
and I think the judge is being sarcastic
I hope so.
Frankly any society that embraces this sort of thing should collapse, because the alternative is too disturbing.
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?
I wonder if this whole thing is AI generated
Obvious ragebait article
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!
and AI Abraham Lincoln saying that whole Civil War thing was a big misunderstanding and the Confederacy was actually just fine
Considering he loved the Dixieland song, and his views on society normal for his time, and the intelligence of the average citizen, and those “AI’s” being an extrapolator of meaningless traits on the average citizen’s intelligence - we might actually learn that he’s sorry, he was wrong and we should all go rebel.
thanks, I feel dizzy now
AI-plim says they’re just fine with it and everybody knows AI only presents objective truth.
Abe statement is probably closer to real than you might imagine.
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?
