Technology

hideshow 32 child comments

[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 3 points 2 years ago (10 children)

Cliffnotes?

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

Woman's brother was killed in a road rage incident
In preparing her victim impact statement for the court, she struggled to find a way to properly represent her brother's voice
Her husband works with AI and helped her generate a video of her brother for the victim impact statement
The video was very well received and apparently true to her brother's personality. Though she didn't forgive the killer, she knew her brother would. So, in the AI video, "he" did.
After all the real people made their statements to the judge, the video was played
The judge loved it and thanked the woman

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 10 points 2 years ago

In preparing her victim impact statement for the court, she struggled to find a way to properly represent her brother’s voice

Should clarify that the woman wrote the script. The AI just generated the voice and image. The AI read the woman's script who wrote it in the tone of her brother putting aside her own feelings.

parent

[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Appreciated – my apologies that I wasn’t clear. I was curious about the connection to “did we learn nothing from doom 2016” that the OP referenced.

parent

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

doom 2016

Is a video game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(2016_video_game)

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You’re killing me.

parent

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 2 years ago

Nah. That Doom Guys MO. Rip and tear until it's done.

parent

[+] carrion0409@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

parent

[–] etchinghillside@reddthat.com 10 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I was wondering what happened in “doom 2016”. And now I can’t tell if you’re summarizing the article or what happened in doom 2016.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[+] carrion0409@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

How does that relate to videos of dead people speaking someone else's words? The only reanimated people in Doom 2016 are the shambling zombies.

parent

[+] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip -9 points 2 years ago (20 children)

Technology isn't inherently good or evil. It entirely depends on the person using it. In this case, it had a very positive impact on everybody involved.

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[+] carrion0409@lemm.ee 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (19 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 19 child comments

parent

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

This. I don't see how it's any different from making an 'ai video' about a murder victim thanking his murderer for easing his pain, in order to 'make people feel better' after a rich perpretrator games the system and is acquitted via dubious means. It's blatant manipulation.

parent

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

Wait but no, not like that, only the positive way I see it.

parent

[–] Bellingdog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Is it reaaaalllly immoral if the kids just freakin' love it though?

parent

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip -2 points 2 years ago (15 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).

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 7 points 2 years ago (10 children)

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.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 years ago (9 children)

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.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 2 years ago (8 children)

So we agree on one point, weirdness.

It’s still got no business in a courtroom.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

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.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

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

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

parent

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

True, many people would have that problem, which is why the context in which the video was shown was acceptable; it was after the verdict had been given.

parent

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 1 point 1 year ago

Such a thing should not impact sentencing, either. The judge allowed it, the judge was swayed by it, it impacted sentencing. This is wrong.

parent

[+] carrion0409@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

parent

[–] Beacon@fedia.io 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

"It just feels wrong" isn't a valid basis for morality. Lots of people say the idea of someone being gay just feels wrong. Lots of people say people being non-Muslim just feels wrong.

parent

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -1 points 2 years ago

That must be a touchy point for someone of your username

parent

[–] BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 years 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.