Fucking disgusting

WTF?

That man did not say anything. A computer algorithm smashed a video together they incidentally uses his likeness, nothing more

The fuck is wrong with people.

Why would a judge allow this? It's like showing the jury a made-for-TV movie based on the trial they're hearing.

There is absolutely zero chance I would allow anyone to theorize what they think I would say using AI. Hell, I don’t like AI in its current state, and that’s the least of my issues with this.

It’s immoral. Regardless of your relation to a person, you shouldn’t be acting like you know what they would say, let alone using that to sway a decision in a courtroom. Unless he specifically wrote something down and it was then recited using the AI, this is absolutely wrong.

It’s selfish. They used his likeness to make an apology they had no possible way of knowing, and they did it to make themselves feel better. They couldve wrote a letter with their own voices instead of turning this into some weird dystopian spectacle.

“It’s just an impact statement.”

Welcome to the slippery slope, folks. We allow use of AI into courtrooms, and not even for something cool (like quickly producing a 3d animation of a car accident for use in explaining—with actual human voices—what happened at the scene). Instead, we use it to sway a judge’s sentencing, while also making an apology on behalf of a dead person (using whatever tech you want because that is not the main problem here) without their consent or even any of their written (you know, like in a will) thoughts.

Pointing to “AI bad” for these arguments is lazy, reductive, and not even remotely the main gripe.

Ok, so his family believed he would forgive, wrote statement for him and made AI make it look like the victim said it. And this is somehow relevant to the court? It's all nice the family thinks this but what has it got with justice?

I'd rather have somebody puppet my corpse like in Weekend at Bernie's. Basically the same thing but more authentic

Unless stated otherwise, please do not use my likeness for legal proceedings on the event of my untimely passing. Please.

This headline lies.

I swear to Christ, if I get murdered and my family makes an AI video of me forgiving them then I will haunt the shit out of them.

An AI version of Christopher Pelkey appeared in an eerily realistic video to forgive his killer... "In another life, we probably could’ve been friends. I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives."

The message was well-received by Judge Todd Lang, who told the courtroom, “I love that AI."

While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video.

Why even do an impact statement? All Christian victims should be assumed to forgive their attackers, right?

Eww, that's such a ghoulish thing to do; letting a distortion of a dead person, that could never act as the deceased person, forgive their killer. Do they even know if he would've done this if he had a say before being killed?

This is some Black Mirror level shit.

While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video, Pelkey’s family said, noting the judge even referred to the video in his statement

So first of all I guess all that stuff in the video about forgiveness wasn't really a factor. I'm just fascinated who called for this? Like was it the prosecution? In what context? Was this part of their closing arguments? Did the defense not object? So many questions.

You have to wonder if this is not grounds for an appeal.

An AI version of Christopher Pelkey appeared in an eerily realistic video to forgive his killer… “In another life, we probably could’ve been friends. I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives.”

"...and while it took my murder to get my wings as an angel in heaven, you still on Earth can get close with Red Bull ™. Red Bull ™ gives you wings!" /s

This bring up an interesting question I like to ask my students about AI. A year or so ago, Meta talked about people making personas of themselves for business. Like if a customer needs help, they can do a video chat with an AI that looks like you and is trained to give the responses you need it to. But what if we could do that just for ourselves, but instead let an AI shadow us for a number of years so it essentially can mimic the language we use and thoughts we have enough to effectively stand in for us in casual conversations?

If the murdered victim in this situation had trained his own AI in such a manner, after years of shadowing and training, would that AI be able to mimic its master’s behavior well enough to give its master’s most likely response to this situation? Would the AI in the video have still forgiven the murderer, and would it hold more significant meaning?

If you could snapshot you as you are up to right now, and keep it as a “living photo” A.I. that would behave and talk like you when interacted with, what would you do with it? If you could have a snapshot AI of anyone in the world in a picture frame on your desk, who you could talk to and interact with, who would you choose?