AI of Dead Arizona Road Rage Victim Addresses Killer In Court (theguardian.com) 31
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Chris Pelkey was killed in a road rage shooting in Chandler, Arizona, in 2021. Three and a half years later, Pelkey appeared in an Arizona court to address his killer. Sort of. "To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances," says a video recording of Pelkey. "In another life, we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have, and I still do," Pelkey continues, wearing a grey baseball cap and sporting the same thick red and brown beard he wore in life.
Pelkey was 37 years old, devoutly religious and an army combat veteran. Horcasitas shot Pelkey at a red light in 2021 after Pelkey exited his vehicle and walked back towards Horcasitas's car. Pelkey's appearance from beyond the grave was made possible by artificial intelligence in what could be the first use of AI to deliver a victim impact statement. Stacey Wales, Pelkey's sister, told local outlet ABC-15 that she had a recurring thought when gathering more than 40 impact statements from Chris's family and friends. "All I kept coming back to was, what would Chris say?" Wales said. [...]
Wales and her husband fed an AI model videos and audio of Pelkey to try to come up with a rendering that would match the sentiments and thoughts of a still-alive Pelkey, something that Wales compared with a "Frankenstein of love" to local outlet Fox 10. Judge Todd Lang responded positively to the AI usage. Lang ultimately sentenced Horcasitas to 10 and a half years in prison on manslaughter charges. "I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness," Lang said. "I feel that that was genuine." Also in favor was Pelkey's brother John, who said that he felt "waves of healing" from seeing his brother's face, and believes that Chris would have forgiven his killer. "That was the man I knew," John said.
Pelkey was 37 years old, devoutly religious and an army combat veteran. Horcasitas shot Pelkey at a red light in 2021 after Pelkey exited his vehicle and walked back towards Horcasitas's car. Pelkey's appearance from beyond the grave was made possible by artificial intelligence in what could be the first use of AI to deliver a victim impact statement. Stacey Wales, Pelkey's sister, told local outlet ABC-15 that she had a recurring thought when gathering more than 40 impact statements from Chris's family and friends. "All I kept coming back to was, what would Chris say?" Wales said. [...]
Wales and her husband fed an AI model videos and audio of Pelkey to try to come up with a rendering that would match the sentiments and thoughts of a still-alive Pelkey, something that Wales compared with a "Frankenstein of love" to local outlet Fox 10. Judge Todd Lang responded positively to the AI usage. Lang ultimately sentenced Horcasitas to 10 and a half years in prison on manslaughter charges. "I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness," Lang said. "I feel that that was genuine." Also in favor was Pelkey's brother John, who said that he felt "waves of healing" from seeing his brother's face, and believes that Chris would have forgiven his killer. "That was the man I knew," John said.
You don't "know" what Chris would say. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris might actually have been pissed off. His friends, who thought the best of him, fed into the AI bot that created the "avatar" of Chris, but this is literally fucking speculation on what Chris might have said.
It's quite possible that 15 minutes after his death, 30 minutes, 6 hours, 2 days, he might have actually said, "you know what, even though I walked towards your vehicle, you still had no to right to shoot me."
Also, why is it that being devoutly religious is somehow a beneficial character trait, like in D&D? Who gives a fuck if he went to church?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, why is it that being devoutly religious is somehow a beneficial character trait, like in D&D? Who gives a fuck if he went to church?
It's a handy indicator? It makes it clear the dude was a delusional farkwit. That makes things easier. Pretty much every claim made thereafter can be ignored as "highly likely to be delusional".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"Bless your heart"
Re: (Score:2)
We'll pray for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, why is it that being devoutly religious is somehow a beneficial character trait, like in D&D? Who gives a fuck if he went to church?
It's relevant from a storytelling perspective because it explains the motivations of his family, and presumably what his inclination would have been.
The moral prescriptivism is something you imbued. The actual text is just character development, like if he loved singing or playing a sport.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My man, I'm gonna pray for you.
You don't see how this could be cathartic for the family. You don't see how this AI resembles the best of traits the family and friends remember about the man. Which is in itself a testament and perhaps even a monument to his character.
Forgiveness is not about absolution of the perpetrator. That is just a bonus so the perp may find peace. Forgiveness is the unburdening of the victims, so they may move on.
And here you are, all whiney and affronted over something that does not c
Oblig. Max Headroom (Score:2)
It's wonderful, isn't it? [youtube.com]
WTF is "the AI of a dead person"? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no "AI of a dead person" anymore than there is a "ghost of a dead person".
What was seen in court was just another gimmick to manipulate the process.
Unless they killed the guy for a second time when they turned the model off.
Re:the fuck? (Score:4, Interesting)
How was this admissible in court? I mean this isn't even hearsay, this is just making up fiction and then having it presented in a misleading way.
It wasn't used for testimony. During sentencing, almost anything is allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
This is so fucking stupid (Score:1)
No wonder there was road rage. They're cunts.
Disgusting (Score:3)
This is just garbage horseshit to bring to court. If you want to create an AI version of a deceased loved one for your own benefit, go for it, but it doesn't belong in court. Maybe if you had recorded every moment in his life and fed that into the AI model, I could somewhat believe what it would come up with as "close enough" but that isn't the case, nor likely to be possible anytime soon.
A court of law is no place for gimmicks (Score:5, Insightful)
Sack any judge who permits this nonsense - they are not doing their job.
What a nightmare meeting AI me would be. (Score:3)
Let off (Score:1)
How can a man getting out of a car, walking back to another man in a separate car and then deliberately pointing a gun at him and shooting him, be manslaughter?
It wasn't 'accidental', if someone points a lethal weapon at another human and pulls the trigger they know what is likely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Statement after death a grave mistake? (Score:1)
As others have said, this was done during sentencing, where apparently, in the US at least, everything is admissible.
Making up evidence would be a completely different story.
What I retain from the article is that one family member felt "waves of healing". Believe me, anything helping to move on from a tragic loss should be at least taken into consideration and not dismissed outright just because it's new.
That said, considering the spiritual angle, there are indeed dangers lurking as reported in this article
Why was it allowed in court ??? (Score:2)
Forgiving and Devout? (Score:2)
So forgiving and devout that he jumped out of his own car and, on foot, approached someone stopped behind him at the lights? Sure, that's definitely the action of someone pious, friendly and non-combative. Jeez, Why the lies always?