Maybe they like the technology and that's why they're downvoting the story.

I just can't upvote this trash story even though you are correct about the usual reason for upvoting posts even when the subject matter is terrible.

This was played before sentencing. It doesn't say it here, but the article I read earlier today stated that because of this video, the judge issued a sentence greater than the maximum recommended by the State. If true, then it really calls into question the sentence itself and how impartial the judge was.

It appears this was a Victim impact statement.

A victim impact statement is a written or oral statement made as part of the judicial legal process, which allows crime victims the opportunity to speak during the sentencing of the convicted person or at subsequent parole hearings.

From the article (emphasizes mine):

But the use of AI for a victim impact statement appears novel, according to Maura Grossman, a professor at the University of Waterloo who has studied the applications of AI in criminal and civil cases. She added, that she did not see any major legal or ethical issues in Pelkey's case.

"Because this is in front of a judge, not a jury, and because the video wasn't submitted as evidence per se, its impact is more limited," she told NPR via email.

Who could forget truly an inventionbefore it's time.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/criminal-confession-skeleton-patent

Fascinating but also kind of creepy.