3d ago

After an Arizona man was shot, an AI video of him addresses his killer in court

www.npr.org /2025/05/07/g-s1-64640/ai-impact-statement-murder-victim

Technology @lemmy.zip

Pro @programming.dev

3d ago

Road rage victim in Arizona resurrected through AI to deliver his own impact statement

www.npr.org /2025/05/07/g-s1-64640/ai-impact-statement-murder-victim

53 comments

Demon technology. Did we learn nothing from doom 2016 ?
- Cliffnotes?
  
  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
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  doom 2016
  Is a video game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_(2016_video_game)
  
  You’re killing me.
  
  Nah. That Doom Guys MO. Rip and tear until it's done.
  
  For this ? The guy who was brought back through Ai was killed in a hit and run then they brought the ai version of him to court to give a statement from beyond the grave of sorts. I think it's immoral as fuck but I'm sure I'll get told why it's actually not.
  
  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.
  
  So basically the uac was fucking around with technology and went to far in their pursuit and opened a portal to hell in an attempt to harness it as a power source. Then the game itself kicks off after everything goes wrong and all hell breaks lose.
  
  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.
- 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.
  
  To me this is the equivalent of taxidermying a person then using them as a puppet. Sure it might have a positive impact on some people but it's immoral at best.
  
  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.
  
  Wait but no, not like that, only the positive way I see it.
  
  Is it reaaaalllly immoral if the kids just freakin' love it though?
  
  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).
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  So we agree on one point, weirdness.
  It’s still got no business in a courtroom.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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
  
  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.
  
  It just feels wrong man. I'm of the belief that we should let the dead rest in peace. Bringing them back through ai or other means fundamentally goes against that. Im also against taxidermy but that's not the debate were having rn. This lands in that category for me. I'm neutral on ai broadly but this is where I draw the line.
  
  "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.
  
  That must be a touchy point for someone of your username
  
  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.

53 comments