▲ 100 ▼ After an Arizona man was shot, an AI video of him addresses his killer in court (www.npr.org) submitted 2 years ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] 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. permalink fedilink source 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. permalink fedilink source parent