13h ago

A Judge Accepted AI Video Testimony From a Dead Man

www.404media.co

'I Loved That AI:' Judge Moved by AI-Generated Avatar of Man Killed in Road Rage Incident

An AI avatar made to look and sound like the likeness of a man who was killed in a road rage incident addressed the court and the man who killed him: “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.”

It was the first time the AI avatar of a victim—in this case, a dead man—has ever addressed a court, and it raises many questions about the use of this type of technology in future court proceedings.

The avatar was made by Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales. Wales tells 404 Media that her husband, Pelkey’s brother-in-law, recoiled when she told him about the idea. “He told me, ‘Stacey, you’re asking a lot.’”

Fuck AI @lemmy.world

technocrit @lemmy.dbzer0.com

12h ago

'I Loved That AI:' Judge Moved by AI-Generated Avatar of Man Killed in Road Rage Incident

www.404media.co /i-loved-that-ai-judge-moved-by-ai-generated-avatar-of-man-killed-in-road-rage-incident/

86 comments

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
- Time to update my will.

This is some perverse shit

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.

This is basically "Weekend at Bernie's", using the likeness of a dead man as a puppet.

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.

"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?
- Omg I hate this so much fuck you
  
  So you prefer CVS?

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.
- 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.
  
  The victim impact statement isn’t evidence in the trial. The trial has already wrapped up. The impact statement is part of sentencing, when the court is deciding what an acceptable punishment would be. The guilty verdict has already been made, so the rules surrounding things like acceptable evidence are much more lenient.
  The reason she wasn’t allowed to make a scene during the trial is because the defense can argue that her outburst is tainting the jury. It’s something the jury is being forced to witness, which hasn’t gone through the proper evidence admission process. So if she makes a scene, the defense can say that the defendant isn’t being given a fair trial because inadmissible evidence was shown to the jury, and move for a mistrial.
  It sounds harsh, but the prosecutor told her to be stoic because they wanted the best chance of nailing the guy. If she threw their case out the window by loudly crying in the back of the courtroom, that wouldn’t be justice.
  
  This is just weird uninformed nonsense.
  The reason that outbursts, like gasping or crying, can cause a mistrial is because they can unfairly influence a jury and so the rules of evidence do not allow them. This isn't part of trial, the jury has already reached a verdict.
  Victim impact statements are not evidence and are not governed by the rules of evidence.
  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.
  More nonsense.
  If you were correct, and there were actual legal grounds to object to these statements then the defense attorney could have objected to them.
  Here's an actual attorney. From the article:
  Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”
- 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.
- 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…
  
  boomer brained judge
  Boomer here. Don't assume we all think the same. Determining behavior from age brackets is about as effective as doing it based on Chinese astrology (but I'm a Monkey so I would say that, wouldn't I?)
  The judge's problem is being a nitwit, not what year they were born in.
- Yeah a fiction has no place in a courtroom. If we can upload maybe we can revisit but this is just stupid.
- Just to be clear, they were fully transparent about it:
  “Hello, just to be clear for everyone seeing this, I am a version of Chris Pelkey recreated through AI that uses my picture and my voice profile,” the stilted avatar says. “I was able to be digitally regenerated to share with you today. Here is insight into who I actually was in real life.”
  However, I think the following is somewhat misleading:
  The video goes back to the AI avatar. “I would like to make my own impact statement,” the avatar says.
  I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. It seems that the motivation was genuine compassion from the victim's family, and a desire to honestly represent victim to the best of their ability. But ultimately, it's still the victim's sister's impact statement, not his.
  Here's what the judge had to say:
  “I loved that AI, and thank you for that. As angry as you are, and as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness, and I know Mr. Horcasitas could appreciate it, but so did I,” Lang said immediately before sentencing Horcasitas. “I love the beauty in what Christopher, and I call him Christopher—I always call people by their last names, it’s a formality of the court—but I feel like calling him Christopher as we’ve gotten to know him today. I feel that that was genuine, because obviously the forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today. But it also says something about the family, because you told me how angry you were, and you demanded the maximum sentence. And even though that’s what you wanted, you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.”
  I am concerned that it could set a precedent for misuse, though. The whole thing seems like very grey to me. I'd suggest everyone read the whole article before passing judgement.
  
  I was able to be digitally regenerated
  I would like to make my own impact statement
  you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.
  These, especially the second, cross the line imo. The judge acknowledges it's AI but is acting like it isn't, and same for the sister especially.
  
  Your emotions don't always line up with "what you know" this is why evidence rules exist in court. Humans don't work that way. This is why there can be mistrials if specific kinds of evidence is revealed to the jury that shouldn't have been shown.
  Digital reenactments shouldn't be allowed, even with disclaimers to the court. It is fiction and has no place here.
- Victim statements to the court are always emotionally manipulative. It's akin to playing a video of home movies of the deceased, and obviously the judge understands that it is a fictitious creation.
  
  No, this is exactly why it shouldn't be allowed. This isn't akin to playing a video of home movies because this is a fake video of the victim. This is complete fiction and people thinking it's the same thing is what makes it wrong.
- Agreed. Until we get full, 100% complete UIs like in Pantheon, this is just Photoshop and a voice synthesizer on crack (not literally, this is an analogy).

I like AI, sort of. But this is ghoulish.

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.
  
  This was shown before the sentencing. The judge referenced it explicitly in their sentencing as a reason to apply leniency.
  From a comment above:
  Here's what the judge had to say:
  “I loved that AI, and thank you for that. As angry as you are, and as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness, and I know Mr. Horcasitas could appreciate it, but so did I,” Lang said immediately before sentencing Horcasitas. “I love the beauty in what Christopher, and I call him Christopher—I always call people by their last names, it’s a formality of the court—but I feel like calling him Christopher as we’ve gotten to know him today. I feel that that was genuine, because obviously the forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today. But it also says something about the family, because you told me how angry you were, and you demanded the maximum sentence. And even though that’s what you wanted, you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.”
  
  Given that the victim is dead, they never should have even entertained the possibility for an impact statement.
  If the sister has shit to say, that's one thing. But this is a travesty.
- Apparently the video was presented after the verdict was already issued. This video had no impact on the actual outcome of the trial, and was more of just a closing statement.
  So the judge didn't approve this a testimony, but just found it emotionally touching.
- Hearsay is allowed in sentencing statements, and Arizona allows those statements to be in a format of their choice.
  It's the phase of the process where the judge hears opinions on what he should sentence the culprit to, so none of it is evidence or treated as anything other than an emotive statement.
  In this case, the sister made two statements: one in the form of a letter where she asked for the maximum sentence, and another in the form of this animation of her brother where she said that he wouldn't want that and would ask for leniency.
  It's gross, but it's not the miscarriage of justice that it seems like from first glance. It was accepted in the same way a poem titled "what my brother would say to you" would be.

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
- It was after the verdict of the trial. This was displayed during the sentencing hearing where family members get to state how the death affected them. It's still fucked up, but to be clear it wasn't used during the trial.
  
  Sentencing is still part of the carriage of justice. Fake statements like this should not be allowed until after all verdicts and punishments are decided.
- 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
  You didn't read the article.
  This isn't grounds for a mistrial, the trial was already over. This happened during the sentencing phase. The defense didn't object to the statements.
  From the article:
  Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”
  
  It happened BEFORE sentencing

This is precedent now. Wheeeeeeeee common law system.
- No it's not. Look at the court level in which it was shown.
  
  Yeah this wasn't ratio or even obiter, perhaps convention. Without looking deeper this was along the lines of an impact statement. Whilst it raises points for discussion its a far cry from precedent for the admission of evidence.

Only in usa. What an embarrassing circus.
- When I saw a headline I thought "A real judge or an American one?"

If anyone ever did this with my likeness after death, even with good intentions, i would haunt the fuck out of them.
- You can create an AI avatar before your death that will haunt them on your behalf.

“Stacey was up front and the video itself…said it was AI generated. We were very careful to make sure it was clear that these were the words that the family believed Christopher would have to say,”
"I love the beauty in what Christopher, and I call him Christopher—I always call people by their last names, it’s a formality of the court—but I feel like calling him Christopher as we’ve gotten to know him today."
Can't have it both ways. If you understand this was fabricated AI then you did not "get to know him today". The facts of the case were already self evident for guilt, but this needs to be a mistrial. We can not have a standard of fair justice when generated AI is treated like living breathing people.

“I loved that AI, and thank you for that...” Lang said immediately before sentencing Horcasitas.
I hope they win that appeal an get a new sentencing or a new trial even. That sounds like a horrible misuse of someone's likeness. Even if my family used a direct quote from me I'd be PISSED if they recreated my face and voice without my permission.
- They can't appeal on this issue because the defense didn't object to the statement and, therefore, did not preserve the issue for appeal.

The judge should have had the sense to keep this shitty craft project out of the courtroom. Victim statements should also be banned as manipulative glurge.

Wales tells 404 Media that her husband, ~~Pelkey’s brother-in-law,~~ recoiled when she told him about the idea.
Edited to remove utterly extraneous information that added absolutely nothing of value or clarity to the sentence. This is her husband, the victim was her brother. We already know her husband is the victims brother -in-law. That's how that works.
- Yeah, that's a weird bit of writing. It's completely unnecessary information that adds nothing to the sentence. I don't know if it's the case, but this is like a micro-aggression where the author felt the need to add more info about the man instead of the woman.

This was not testimony. It was part of the victim impact statement and was scripted by his sister. AI was only used to recreate the voice and visage. I am usually a fan of 404 Media, but that should be explicitly stated.
The use of the word “testimony” is not entirely accurate in the sense that that term is used in court.
- From NPR:
  …using several AI tools, Wales' husband and Yentzer managed to create a convincing video using about a 4.5-minute-video of Pelkey, his funeral photo and a script that Wales prepared
  Emphasis mine.

Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”
Gattuso said she understood the concerns, but felt that Pelkey’s AI avatar was handled deftly. “Stacey was up front and the video itself…said it was AI generated. We were very careful to make sure it was clear that these were the words that the family believed Christopher would have to say,” she said. “At no point did anyone try to pass it off as Chris’ own words.”
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.
From a different article quoting a former judge in the court:
"There are going to be critics, but they picked the right forum to do it. In a trial with a jury you couldn't do it, but with sentencing, everything is open, hearsay is admissible, both sides can get up and express what they want to do," McDonald said.
"The power of it was that the judge had to see the gentleness, the kindness, the feeling of sincerity and having his sister say, 'Well we don't agree with it, this is what he would've wanted the court to know'," he said.
I don't like it, and it feels dirty to me, but since the law allows them to express basically whatever they want in whatever format they want during this phase, it doesn't seem harmful in this case, just gross.
I actually think it's a little more gross that the family was able to be that forthright and say that the victim would not want what they were asking for, and still ask for it.

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judicialBio.asp?jdgID=505&jdgUSID=12716
It would be a shame if publicly known Todd Lang was reported over and over again for his bias.
https://www.azcourts.gov/azcjc <<<<<<
(The form is a pain)

Wow, this is super distasteful and manipulative.

If I were the defense and scummy, I'd reply with an equally disturbing AI avatar of the victim saying that he actually killed himself and that the road rage guy was innocent.
I mean, seems fair.

"Your honor, although the prosecution has indeed depicted my client as the pathetic soy virgin in exhibit A, meme 4, please watch this 7 episode TV drama mini series that the prosecution wrote and produced for this very case before making your judgement."

I thought this was an onion...

This is a clown show and the judge who let this travesty happen is an idiot.

I feel the defense should have insisted on having their own ai of jesus talk about forgiveness.
- It's my understanding the AI dead guy actually did talk about forgiveness
  
  yeah even if he plead for leniency it does not matter. Its like admitting a diary written by someone else from his perspective. it just makes no sense and has nothing to do with anything.

Looks like I'll have to pre write a testimony for if/when someone kills me and my sister wants to have AI talk for me.
"Hey fuck head who killed me, you're a fucking pussy!
Ooooo look at me I used a (insert weapon ) like a little bitch
I'm gonna haunt your ass and focus the entirety of my spectral energy on making sure your dumbass life sucks in there.
Also, suck a dick dumb cunt, I'm poor, you got nothing but jail for being a useless little bitch baby.
Catch ya real soon, like reeeeeeeeaaaaaaal soon."

This will end up causing the murderer to get out on appeal, I guarantee it.

Fuck NO!!

This is some really stupid bullshit... Clearly the sister is grieving, but they never should have allowed this to play in court. What a joke.
- She probably received a lot of money from some AI firm aswell as all that was necessary to pull this off from a tech perspective. They want to make this a common thing and establish precedent
  
  Her brother worked for the AI firm

Pretty fucked.

86 comments