An AI avatar made to look and sound like the likeness of a man who was killed in a road rage incident addressed the court and the man who killed him: “To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” the AI avatar of Christopher Pelkey said. “In another life we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness and a God who forgives. I still do.”

It was the first time the AI avatar of a victim—in this case, a dead man—has ever addressed a court, and it raises many questions about the use of this type of technology in future court proceedings.

  • Wilco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is fucking stupid. No one has the right to fake another person’s appearance in court. “We could have been friends” is lame and embarrassing. So stupid and lame.

  • Rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    There is no end to what the robolovers think is normal or acceptable. Fucking weird, creepy, and disgusting.

  • rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Clickbait title. It wasn’t testimony, it was part of a victim impact statement. The defendant had already been found guilty.

    Still weird, but not as procedurally questionable as it sounds. Victim impact statements are meant to literally sway the judge toward a harsher sentence, and basically everything’s fair play.

    • turtle [he/him]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      This still has no place in a court of law if it was supposed to influence anything about the case.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Yeah … that is not OK.

    “And I would like to amend my will to add the prosecutor’s kid as the beneficiary. And thank you, Judge, and might I add that you make that gavel look very powerful!”

  • Mac@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Do i need to submit paperwork somewhere giving formal non-consent to this kind of thing?

  • LuxSpark@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 days ago

    If these are not the victim’s actual words, then WTF? This is completely contrived.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Using it at a trial like this is completely unhinged. That being said, it might help victims of violent crimes give their testimony (I’m mainly thinking of SA). I could see this having a use in prisoner rehabilitation as well, with the explicit consent of the victom or family of course.

    • rtxn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      It wasn’t testimony, it was part of a victim impact statement. Vibes should never be used as testimony or evidence because LLMs are infamously biased and can’t be sequestered.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Yes, in this case it is completely unacceptable.

        Im saying after that that I would find it acceptable for victims to use an avatar to convey what they want to say, if speaking in court is too difficult because of the trauma. It shouldnt be an llm though, the victim should write the script.

        • bstix@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          It was written by the sister. It’s what she thought he would have said, and it was her victim statement.

          The AI made it into a video.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Using it at a trial like this is completely unhinged. That being said, it might help victims…

            Yes, in this case it is completely unacceptable. Im saying after that that I would find it acceptable for victims…

            I am talking about two different scenarios. My second comment is solely to clarify this point.