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
[–] 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
    •