it would have been about as respectful to use the corpse as a puppet and put up a show for the court with it.
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
581 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
70031 readers
4254 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Trial at Bernies? OK WERE DOING TRIAL AT BERNIES! This is going to be legend-wait for it....
I really don’t get how this is allowed.
Watched the video, it is creepy. It is also edited. Wife seems to just have put words on her dead husband's AI.
This has not set a legal precedent. WTF.
Honestly, all she's done has created history's most gaping opportunity for an appeal.
If I get killed and my family forgives the killer on my behalf I am haunting their asses so hard.
especially if an AI ghost of you was used to exonerate the killer.
then it's your ghost VS an AI ghost
I found this interesting. The AI said it believes in forgiveness.
"To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances," the AI Pelkey says. "In another life we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness, in God who forgives, I always have. And I still do."
But the victim's sister, who created the AI did it to try to get the maximum sentence for the defendant.
The prosecution against Horcasitas was only seeking nine years for the killing. The maximum was 10 and a half years. Stacey had asked the judge for the full sentence during her own impact statement. The judge granted her request, something Stacey credits—in part—to the AI video.
Yeah, a way to play both sides of pushing for a harsh sentence whole you use a puppet to drive empathy...
Should have been a slam dunk without the video.
I could see this being used in retributive justice to help humanize victims to perpetrators but it should really be a private thing and not a means of getting a confession or shaming the perpetrator further
"getting a confession"? more like straight up fabricating
The estate of Ronnie James Dio and Wendy Dio have entered the chat.
This isn't a message from the victim. This is a message from his sister using his image as a way to increase the impact of her statement in court.
This is a bad thing, this is manipulating the court with a false and confusing message.
The worse is everybody knows, including the judge, but they still chose to accept it.
Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it.
No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions.
It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted.
Hot take: victim impact statements shouldn't be allowed. They are appeals to emotion.
load more comments
(9 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
There were videos shown during the trial that Stacey said were deeply difficult to sit through. “Videos of Chris literally being blown away with a bullet through his chest, going in the street, falling backward. We saw these items over and over and over,” she said. “And we were instructed: don’t you gasp and don’t you cry and do not make a scene, because that can cause a mistrial.”
“Our goal was to make the judge cry. Our goal was to bring Chris to life and to humanize him,” she said.
If gasping at video of real events is grounds for a mistrial, then so is fabricated statements intended to emotionally manipulate the court. It's ludicrous that this was allowed and honestly is grounds to disbar the judge. If he allows AI nonsense like this, then his courtroom can not be relied upon for fair trials.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Seems like a great way to provide the defendant with a great reason to appeal
I’d really like to hope that this is a one off boomer brained judge and the precedent set is this was as stupid an idea as it gets, but every time I think shot can’t get dumber…
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” the AI avatar of Christopher Pelkey said. “In another life we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness and a God who forgives. I still do.”
I find this nauseatingly disgusting and a disgrace that this was shown in a court of all places.
No, this man does not believe in forgiveness or a God because he's dead. He never said this, somebody wrote this script and a computer just made a video off it with his likeness.
Fuck everything about this, this should be prohibited
This wasn't testimony, it was an impact statement.
Impact statements are wild and crazy and this isn't surprising in anyway
No, this wasn't an impact statement either.
This was a huntch of pixels moved around by a huge wasteful amount of CPU power. The actual victim is dead, he can't talk and people are putting words in his mouth and it shouldn't be allowed.
It was literally in the article explaining that this was presented as the victim impact statement.
Have you learned nothing about modern "news" ? Dont be part of the problem of spreading misinformation, be diligent and responsible. And ita okay to make mistakes, own them and move forward. Its not easy to get your information correct everytime, theres no shame in that, only in ignoring your responsibility to self correct voluntarily when you find out
Peace be upon you, we need to work together, because even though I'm calling out the inaccuracy in your comment, i do believe using this technology for this purpose is heinous
Edit: from the NPR article as its not paywalled
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.
Time to update my will.
"Hi, I'm Manifish_Destiny speaking to you from beyond the grave. I'm happy to say that even though I had some skepticism of AI avatars and even put something about that in my will, I just didn't understand its potential to embody my true self. But now I do, so you can disregard all that. Come to think of it, you can disregard the rest of the will as well, I've got some radical new ideas..."
This judge needs to be disbarred and have a forced mental evaluation.
The fuckin’ dude’s wife wrote the speech the AI read… I don’t care how much you know someone, putting words in their mouths like that feels wrong. And the fucking judge added a year to the sentence citing the power of the video.
Fucking absurd.
Yeah, this is super fucked up. I think that it would be powerful and completely reasonable to have the AI read actual words he wrote, like from old text messages, emails, or whatever. That is a legitimate way to bring someone to life—completely ethical if they wrote the material. This is a disgrace to justice and ridiculous.
I thought it was his sister who wrote the speech the AI read, but yeah, this whole thing feels wrong and gross.
"gampa, did it hurt when you died?"
Hey there, buddy. That’s a big question! When people get very old or very sick, their bodies sometimes get tired, like a toy that slowly stops working. Normal people might go and buy a new toy from Amazon with all their great prices and exceptional customer service but your old gramps couldn't do that. When it’s time to go, it’s usually peaceful—like falling asleep after a long, fun day on a nice comfortable Saatva bed. I don’t think it hurts, because our bodies know how to let go gently. What’s important is all the love and happy memories we share. You can even go back and look at all our wonderful memories from the good people at Instagram. And even when I’m not here anymore, that love stays with you forever. Would you like to send some of those memories to your local Walgreen's to print?
Ha, genius. So true as well, this is the inevitable result of personalised ads. A video of your dead Grandmother popping up saying: "I sure did love big brand hazelnut chocolate. Celebrate my birthday tomorrow and buy a bar for you and the whole family."
load more comments
(3 replies)
Wtaf... regardless of how well he was known by his family, this is the glorified version of a video resumé created by someone else, not the actual person – so it should be accepted as that: someone else's testimony.
It's not even a Reynolds' beta-level simulation.
Why the judge accepted is beyond me.
Preface: This does not belong in a courtroom. These were not his words. These were words that someone else wrote, and then put into the mouth of a very realistic puppet of him.
This was a victim impact statement, which I think comes after sentencing. In that case, it wouldn't have had an impact on sentencing, but I still feel quite strongly that this kind of misrepresentation has no place in a court.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
This is basically "Weekend at Bernie's", using the likeness of a dead man as a puppet.
This is some perverse shit
nope. nope nope nope! Fuck this. I wanna go back to 2002 with Cortana whispering in my ear about fleet chatter and being optimistic.
That's not the world that unfurled though, and LLM's are not AI.
This marketing hype regurgitation machine "learning" can all go eat shit. All of it. Soooo done with the simps saying "oh but this application of the tech totally justifies burning down forests and guzzling water and power and totally wasnt trained on stolen, socially prejudice datasets"
Fuck that noise and while we're at it I'm entirely turned off by AAA media trends and current gen hardware too. Don't @ me, fuck a smartphone I've got a DS.
AI should absolutely never be allowed in court. Defense is probably stoked about this because it's obviously a mistrial. Judge should be reprimanded for allowing that shit
load more comments
(7 replies)
I like AI, sort of. But this is ghoulish.
view more: next ›