Skip Navigation

Technology @lemmy.world

return2ozma @lemmy.world

2d 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

1d 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

So a virtual corpse puppet?

That should never be allowed in court. What a crock of shit.
- It was a victim impact statement, not subject to the rules of evidence. The shooter had already been found guilty, and this was an impact statement from the victim’s sister, to sway how the shooter should be sentenced. The victim’s bill of rights says that victims should be allowed to choose the method in which they make an impact statement, and his sister chose the AI video.
  I agree that it shouldn’t be admissible as evidence. But that’s not really what’s being discussed here, because it wasn’t being used as evidence. The shooter was already found guilty.

Looking at the downvotes, remember upvoting an article ≠ an endorsement of the shitty technology being discussed in the article.
We shit on the technology in the comments, and upvote it so more of us can read about it and shit on it.
- Maybe they like the technology and that's why they're downvoting the story.
- I just can't upvote this trash story even though you are correct about the usual reason for upvoting posts even when the subject matter is terrible.

If I am murdered please don’t do this. I do not care if you feel like it will help you process the events

Reminds me of the crime skeleton, shout out to anyone who knows what I'm talking about.
- Who could forget truly an inventionbefore it's time.
  https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/criminal-confession-skeleton-patent

It sounds like it was played after a sentencing was given? Would be kind of sketchy if not.
- This was played before sentencing. It doesn't say it here, but the article I read earlier today stated that because of this video, the judge issued a sentence greater than the maximum recommended by the State. If true, then it really calls into question the sentence itself and how impartial the judge was.
  
  Oh - then that’s fucked up. Synthesizing some narrative to potentially coerce an outcome seems like a slippery slope. (Not necessarily saying that’s exactly what happened here.)
- It appears this was a Victim impact statement.
  A victim impact statement is a written or oral statement made as part of the judicial legal process, which allows crime victims the opportunity to speak during the sentencing of the convicted person or at subsequent parole hearings.
  From the article (emphasizes mine):
  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.
  
  Ah yes, appeals to emotion, my favorite part of the judicial process.

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
  
  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.
- 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.

Thanks for sharing; I thought this was a fascinating read, especially since it ended on a positive note and not pure condemnation. It seems totally Black Mirror-esque, but I do wonder how many of the commentators here attacking it didn't read the article. The family obviously didn't make this decision lightly, given how much work it took to create it, and even the judge appreciated the novel approach. This is probably one of the best-case use scenarios relative to the abyss of unstoppable horror that awaits us.
- Fascinating but also kind of creepy.
  
  Perhaps; it seemed like they knew the decedent well enough to know that he would appreciate this, from everything that the article says. With that said, I also won't be surprised if templates for wills or living trusts add a no-duplication statement by default over the coming years.

53 comments