this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
128 points (98.5% liked)

Fuck AI

2699 readers
1485 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Wilco@lemm.ee 19 points 2 days ago

This is fucking stupid. No one has the right to fake another person's appearance in court. "We could have been friends" is lame and embarrassing. So stupid and lame.

[–] rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There is no end to what the robolovers think is normal or acceptable. Fucking weird, creepy, and disgusting.

[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

And dumb Christians will eat it up

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago

What a fuckknob

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 53 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Clickbait title. It wasn't testimony, it was part of a victim impact statement. The defendant had already been found guilty.

Still weird, but not as procedurally questionable as it sounds. Victim impact statements are meant to literally sway the judge toward a harsher sentence, and basically everything's fair play.

[–] turtle@lemm.ee 37 points 3 days ago

This still has no place in a court of law if it was supposed to influence anything about the case.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 57 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Yeah ... that is not OK.

"And I would like to amend my will to add the prosecutor's kid as the beneficiary. And thank you, Judge, and might I add that you make that gavel look very powerful!"

[–] Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

Simpson's did it. The lawyer dubbed his voice onto a video will.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

According to an article (dunno if it's this one, didn't click lol) the victim's sister wrote it and they just used Ai for his voice and likeness.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago

Still inappropriate.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 43 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We have this interesting combination of high tech and low tech literacy, before you know it praying to the machine spirits will be a mainstream religion.

[–] SassyRamen@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Let's hope. At least the machines are real

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Praying to a machine that isn't listening isn't really any different than praying to the Moon.

[–] SassyRamen@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't the A.I. listen? My phone listens to every word I say.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's no one there! It's mindless, listening is an active process that requires a person.

[–] SassyRamen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Sheep can hear, when a preacher talks to a crowed of sheep, the sheep hear him. A sheep is not a person.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sheep can hear, they don't listen.

But let's say they do!

Should you worship sheep because they can hear your prayers?

[–] SassyRamen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're the one bringing up listening as a requirement for prayer. For me personaly, sheep are for fuckin'

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 day ago

I'm pointing out that praying to the machine spirits is like any other form of prayer.

Do you even disagree or are you just being argumentative?

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There's a marked difference, though, the Moon can't actually generate words that you can digest. Some people might think the Moon is speaking to them, but their brains are just spicy - it is not the same as a machine.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The machine isn't really speaking to them either, it's just generating responses through a pattern recognition engine. There's no "there" there.

Might as well pray to a parrot.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

what a shit show.

this doesn't belong in a court of law.

[–] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 28 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I genuinely used to think Black Mirror was way too unbelievable to be scary

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Welcome to earth / life. You must be new here.

[–] LuxSpark@lemmy.cafe 23 points 3 days ago

If these are not the victim’s actual words, then WTF? This is completely contrived.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 12 points 2 days ago

Do i need to submit paperwork somewhere giving formal non-consent to this kind of thing?

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

This seems like it opens the door to asking for a mistrial.

[–] thisbenzingring 11 points 3 days ago

how disgusting

Hurry submit an AI video of Brian Thompson admitting that he accidentally shot himself as evidence

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Using it at a trial like this is completely unhinged. That being said, it might help victims of violent crimes give their testimony (I'm mainly thinking of SA). I could see this having a use in prisoner rehabilitation as well, with the explicit consent of the victom or family of course.

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It wasn't testimony, it was part of a victim impact statement. Vibes should never be used as testimony or evidence because LLMs are infamously biased and can't be sequestered.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yes, in this case it is completely unacceptable.

Im saying after that that I would find it acceptable for victims to use an avatar to convey what they want to say, if speaking in court is too difficult because of the trauma. It shouldnt be an llm though, the victim should write the script.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It was written by the sister. It's what she thought he would have said, and it was her victim statement.

The AI made it into a video.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Using it at a trial like this is completely unhinged. That being said, it might help victims...

Yes, in this case it is completely unacceptable. Im saying after that that I would find it acceptable for victims...

I am talking about two different scenarios. My second comment is solely to clarify this point.