National headlines were made about the usage of AI to make someone “appear” in court. They even showed the AI showing footage to demonstrate what kind of person they were. Why couldn’t they just stop with the initial footage of them at the counter? Why is making an AI of someone necessary if it’s going to be based on things that can be read, seen, heard, or shown on their own anyways?
You must log in or register to comment.
The way I understood it this was part of “show the impact of the crime” section of the trial. It isn’t part of the evidence. It was just the victim’s sister’s way of showing her loss. It is more about emotions and less about facts. She was free to submit more or less whatever media she wanted. So this is not too different from some cheesy montage of the victim’s photos and quotes or so.
