100
After an Arizona man was shot, an AI video of him addresses his killer in court (www.npr.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What makes it immoral? Nobody was hurt in any way, physically, emotionally, or financially. They disclosed the use of AI before showing the video. It even helped the perpetrator get a smaller sentence (IMO prison as a concept is inhumane, so less prison time is morally right).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Those were not his words. They were someone else's words spoken by a very realistic puppet they made of him after he died.

    That's weird at best, and does not belong in a court.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    No doubt it's weird, but it was also a genuine attempt by a sister to speak for her beloved brother. I think it's beautiful and a perfect example of the importance of keeping an open mind, especially regarding things that make us uncomfortable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    So we agree on one point, weirdness.

    It’s still got no business in a courtroom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why not? It wasn't used to influence the trial in any way; it was just part of the victim impact statements after the verdict was rendered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Because a judge allowing anyone to represent their views in court as though those views belong to someone else is a textbook "bad idea." It is a misrepresentation of the truth.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    So it would've been equally bad if instead of a video, she'd just read a statement she'd written in his voice? Something along the lines of:

    My brother isn't here to speak for himself, but if he was, he'd say blah blah blah

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Not at all, because it would have been her making claims about what she believes her brother would have said, and not a simulacrum of her brother speaking her words with his voice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    But that's what she did. She was upfront about the fact that it was an AI video reciting a script that she'd written.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You can say that all you want, but when your brain is presented with a video of a person, using that person's voice, you're going to take what's being said as being from that person in the video.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Oh, I agree that it's creepy and something that could very easily be abused. But in this case, it seems to have been the right move. Whether the dead brother would have approved, we'll never know. But the living sister seemed to earnestly believe he would have, and that's enough for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent