AI of Dead Arizona Road Rage Victim Addresses Killer In Court (theguardian.com) 122
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:You don't "know" what Chris would say. (Score:4, 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:You don't "know" what Chris would say. (Score:5, Funny)
"Bless your heart"
Re: (Score:3)
We'll pray for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite unfair. Most religious people are only delusional in one narrow area....
Well, that's wrong. Everybody's delusional. But I'm talking about the area where their delusions are significantly different from those of everyone else.
Handy indicator of what? (Score:3)
Getting out of a car to talk to another driver is delusional now? Unwise maybe especially if the driver is a trigger happy arsehole like that guy was but then no way to know until its too late. Stop blaming the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
... trigger happy arsehole ...
trigger happy bitch-ass coward
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Getting out of a car to talk to another driver is delusional now?
Reading Comprehension for Dummies [dummies.com]
You're welcome
Re: (Score:3)
Someone just walking towards you is a threat?? Jesus, get some psychiatric help you schitzo.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone just walking towards you is a threat??
Someone exiting their vehicle (after a vehicle to vehicle aggressive altercation) and coming at you is a threat. Road rage is a common enough thing that you should reasonably expect violence in this situation.
You should not respond with deadly force, except as a last resort. The correct response is to roll up your windows, lock your doors, and drive away. If they follow, seek help.
I have personally had someone follow me from near my office in Santa Clara, down three freeways, in rush hour traffic, to a S
Re: (Score:2)
"But yeah, some manifestations of some religions in practice very much preach all that nonsense about turning the other cheek, making peace and living in peace with others as far as possible, asking forgiveness and making restitution when you have wronged someone, building up others, etc. From my experience, pretty much not what atheism (the assholeier than thou religion) teaches."
In my experience this is not true at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Is reading comprehension considered offensive now?
Not what was being responded or refrred to at all but, sure, let's just rant on about our feelings completely ignoring context.
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, Interesting)
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
Re:You don't "know" what Chris would say. (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish you people would learn how offensive it is to tell someone you are going to pray for them. It is highly offensive.
Re: You don't "know" what Chris would say. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent funnier, but I was hoping the discussion would seriously consider the GAIvatar issue...
Re: (Score:2)
Unless, of course, it's not.
Know your audience.
Re: (Score:2)
If your audience wants nothing material to be done about something and is actively hoping the event / issue repeats itself, then sure they'll want prayers. Thoughts too.
Since when? (Score:3)
I'm agnostic but I've had people say they'll pray for me. Doesn't bother me if they want to waste their time talking to no one. You sound a bit of a snowflake frankly.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you why it's offensive. It's offensive because anytime I've been told that it was because they think I have some flaw (for example not sharing their delusion) in their mind that I don't think I have. It's also offensive because it's not a real meaningful gesture, it's easy to just tell someone you'll pray for them and you get the benefit of seeming to care for no real effort.
Re: Since when? (Score:2)
You sound more than a little bit insecure and paranoid.
Re: (Score:2)
" It's also offensive because it's not a real meaningful gesture, it's easy to just tell someone you'll pray for them and you get the benefit of seeming to care for no real effort."
Ah, so for you everyone who believes something other than you must be just pretending to care about you, your soul, or whatever? Deliberately being fake and insincere? Wow, what a "wonderful" world you live in. You can stay there. Alone. Better yet, maybe move to an island with a soccer or volley ball. You have a very low o
Re: (Score:3)
Many of them know, and that's why they say it rather than doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish you people would learn how offensive it is to tell someone you are going to pray for them. It is highly offensive.
Offensive? Nah, I just treat them as if they are wishing me good luck. I do tell them I don't believe in such things, but that I appreciate the sentiment.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the tiniest belief in any kind of deity. I'm friends with various people that believe all kinds of insane shit and pray to stuff I consider pretty fucking weird.
I can't say I've ever been offended by being prayed for. It's a kindness.
It means they wish you well within the scaffolding of their universe.
I suspect that any argument you have toward it being offensive can also boil down to you simply find their beliefs offensive, period.
Re: (Score:2)
"I wish you people would learn how offensive it is to tell someone you are going to pray for them."
Seriously? How effed up is that? Is it offensive if they tell you they are making coffee when they get home? Is it offensive if they tell you I'm so sorry $_Bad_Thing happened to you? Why is it offensive that the so feel your pain they want to reach out to their $_Diety to help you?
My family had something horrific happen to us and folks meaning well would say "God only gives us challenges he knows we can o
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is that almost always the statement "I will pray for you" is made with passive-aggressive intent. Simply by making it known to the person that they will pray for them. Sure, it may sound rather positive, but it is disdain towards the person. And also a little bit of aggrandizing themselves. As the ones praying have enough clout with whomever/whatever they believe in to make any kind of difference.
Sure, if you think someone requires prayer, you can also shut up about it, instead of telling you'll do
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, you put this so much more elegantly than I could.
Re: (Score:2)
"Problem is that almost always the statement "I will pray for you" is made with passive-aggressive intent. "
I've never experienced this. At all. I have no doubt you perceive it this way is more of a reflection on you and distrust of the "bad other people" who believe differently than you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the religious are all into fake reality and lies. So, yes, to somebody this deeply defective, it may have given "comfort". Not that this is in any way a good thing...
Re: (Score:2)
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 concern you.
If I were you, I'd take a hard look at that cynicism and righteousness you're sporting. You could have a better life than this. Choice is yours. I'm just saying.
This entire post is a deluded person saying that leaning into delusion is a good thing so long as it feels good. Court cases should not involve delusion. Delusion should be saved for entertainment, not for real world interaction. Shaping reality in a comforting way is fraught with peril for those who actually have the ability to reason and understand reality as it exists. If the family wanted catharsis from a make-believe avatar of their fallen family member, that's a thing to do in private, not something f
Re: (Score:2)
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 concern you.
If I were you, I'd take a hard look at that cynicism and righteousness you're sporting. You could have a better life than this. Choice is yours. I'm just saying.
Since a victim impact statement is a real thing, and has implications in sentencing, is it your premise that an AI construct is saying exactly what the dead person would say?
Is this where we want to head? The non-victim cold just as well say " I want my killer to be flayed, then dropped into a vat of acid". If his kind and gentle statement - which he did not make - carries the same weight as a real actual human, my repulsive example is equally as relevant as what they did.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be more interesting to see what would happen if the 'victim' said something along the lines of: "I tried to kill him, but he got me first".
Would the Judge be justified in setting aside the guilty verdict on the basis of self-defense?
Re: (Score:2)
It would be more interesting to see what would happen if the 'victim' said something along the lines of: "I tried to kill him, but he got me first".
Would the Judge be justified in setting aside the guilty verdict on the basis of self-defense?
Yeah - just too many things about this are weird and not anything that has to do with the pursuit of justice. At best, it is hearsay, just what other people think he would say.
Re: (Score:2)
"Since a victim impact statement is a real thing, and has implications in sentencing, is it your premise that an AI construct is saying exactly what the dead person would say?"
The full story I read about this earlier included that folks' have the ability to present their impact statement anyway they want. This family decided to present it as how they remember their loved one -- and that's exactly how it was presented to the court.
Re: (Score:2)
My man, I'm gonna pray for you.
Prayer: a method by which people can feel good about doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
And here you are, all whiney and affronted over something that does not concern you.
No. This is court, a public legal proceeding, where fiction has been allowed to be presented as fact. This IS of concern to everyone, not just the principals involved.
What you have here is a nice, touchy-feely story of a dead man forgiving his killer, which is going to bear on his sentence. Who doesn't love that kind of story? What happens when the fake rendition of the person demands vengeance and cries out in court, "his life for my life!"? What happens when this is weaponized, where the fake person
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?
The other delulus that also go to church do. Hence they use this as advertising. Obviously, people with working minds find this creepy and disrespectful, and probably immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but I don't find memorials disrespectful. And that's what this is. I'm open to arguments about why it's immoral, and whether it's creepy or not is a personal evaluation, but I don't feel it's disrespectful.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a memorial. That is essentially a lie. A memorial is when you share personal stories about a person. This is something else.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many different memorials. Some are sculptures, some are dates on the calendar, some are meetings where you remember the person. Gravestones are memorials. This presentation is a memorial.
Re: (Score:2)
All very true, but you've missed the point of the victim impact statement. In a murder case, it's not about the impact on the murder case, it's about the impact on those close to the victim. This was what his family wanted to say about how it impacted them. They just said it in an odd and indirect way.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
We've entered the era where truth and facts no longer matter. Speculative fiction has taken over the world. This is just an extension of that baseline issue. Reality is harsh, stark, and sometimes brutal. And some folks just don't have the capacity to face it as it is, so they let whatever fiction they use to comfort themselves seep into reality and in some cases, fully replace it. That includes religion, but also includes this obsession some have with using AI to create new realities that are less harsh, s
Re: (Score:2)
Chris might actually have been pissed off.
He got shot and paid the ultimate price, but at the moment when he walked back toward the other car, he was likely not feeling charitable and forgiving.
That the judge not only accepted the AI video but also liked it is gravely disturbing because the video created by his family is essentially hearsay, but just in an unconventional form.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for this. In this age of AI-ruination, where I'm just looking for a way out, your sane and thoughtful comment brought me just a little bit of hope.
What if "Chris" approved his GAIvatar? (Score:2)
I think you actually touched on a meaningful issue, but it was apparently dropped in the discussion. "Slashdot do fail me now"?
What if he had created his GAIvatar (Generative AI avatar) in advance of his death? We have that technology now and a personal GAIvatar could even be "validated" while the human being is still alive. Ask the same question to each of them and compare their answers. No, I don't think that the GAIvatar will be able to generate exactly the same answer as the human model, but I definitel
Experiment with it. (Score:2)
Show the video over and over to the prisoner. See what happens after years of exposure... is it torture? does it have an impact after a while?
Anybody slow or sick enough to have an AI of the victim do anything to them is probably not fit for trial and should be put in a hospital for the criminally insane. But how about we do some experiments on prisoners to find out if it has any emotional impact on them which is one of the reasons they have statements from the family or victim to the criminal. The other r
Re: (Score:3)
Fascinating. So you disrespect anybody that does not share your delusion? How quaint and how disconnected from reality. Do you find it worse if somebody has a different religious belief than you or do you find it worse if somebody has none?
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to believe he was disrespecting all those with ANY shared delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually these nil wits make an exception for their own "special" delusion. "Strength in numbers" even applies to the most stupid causes, after all. Not that you can really "win", but seeing that would require a connection to reality.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you internet atheists all went away
No, people with critical thinking skills and a resistance to brainwashing are still here. The surprising thing is that the religious haven't all been bilked out of everything by scams yet.
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: (Score:3)
Indeed. The correct term would be "fake person that looks and sounds like the dead person" and it at least morally rapes the memory of the dead person.
Re: (Score:2)
"Facimile of likeness and voice presenting various ideas of others" would be the correct term, unless we are giving AI personhood now.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence "fake person". But I gree, there is room for misunderstanding. I like your version.
Re: WTF is "the AI of a dead person"? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What was seen in court was just another gimmick to manipulate the process.
Manipulating the process is the entire purpose of victim impact statements. They're supposed to manipulate the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Not like I'm arguing it isn't. But there is the rock bottom and then there's digging into it.
Re: (Score:2)
You are in conflict with the intent of impact statements. Good luck with that.
the fuck? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the fuck? (Score:5, 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)
It wasn't used for testimony. During sentencing, almost anything is allowed.
The AI says, "I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives."
So, it advocates a very light sentence, or none at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't used for testimony. During sentencing, almost anything is allowed.
The AI says, "I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives."
So, it advocates a very light sentence, or none at all.
I'm going to copypasta part of a comment I wrote above: What you have here is a nice, touchy-feely story of a dead man forgiving his killer, which is going to bear on his sentence. Who doesn't love that kind of story? What happens when the fake rendition of the person demands vengeance and cries out in court, "his life for my life!"? What happens when this is weaponized, where the fake person is specially crafted to send a specific, desired, message to the court, rather than "what he would have done?" When
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm NOT a lawyer. But I have a LOT of friends who are. And I ask them stuff. So I probably know more than the non-lawyers here do. Having said that, nobody should take what I say as more than an educated guess.
Yeah, this is pretty much my thought too. My guess right now is that the only reason - for now - this was allowed is that the AI pleaded for forgiveness for defendant. But my guess is also that in a very short term, the defendant's lawyer will go to court again and claim that the use
This is so fucking stupid (Score:1)
No wonder there was road rage. They're cunts.
DEI (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sack any judge who permits this nonsense - they are not doing their job.
This submission is no different than the family members addressing the killer *after* sentencing. This wasn't the impact statement and had no bearing on the case. The judge was doing his job, you weren't doing your research before passing judgement / commenting on it ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
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:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Let's keep an open mind.
Sorry, but no. This is not only an isult to the memory of the deceased, it is 100% delusion. And hence ultimately nothing good can come from it.
Why was it allowed in court ??? (Score:2)
Forgiving and Devout? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Forgiving and Devout? (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion is built on a Big Lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie). That is why the religious do not mind adding smaller lies to it: It fits the way they percive "reality". Yes, that is really bad. But it nicely explains all the religious fuckery (including mass-murder and genocide) that has been going on and still continues today. The denial of reality needed to be religious may also nicely explain why priests of any kind routinely need to abuse 100's of children before anythign happens. Smalelr numbers of child-rapes just go under "That cannot have happened, he is a man of God!"...
From observable evidence, being "devout" is in no way a positive quality of a person. Quite the opposite. Takes a working mind to see that though.
How creepy (Score:2)
This is prerry much something out of a horror-movie. I would also think that it is a severe post-mortem insult to the deceased.
This should never be allowed. (Score:2)
This is a clueless and very dangerous precendent.I'm amazed that the judge allowed this.
Apart from the fact that no person or thing can possibly know what the victim actually would have thought, not many people have enough emotional detachment and technical knowledge around AI to understand that the words that the AI said in court were actually manufactured by someone/something else and disguised as the words of the victim, and they could have made him say anything.Yes people on some level knew this was AI,
Re: (Score:2)
This is a clueless and very dangerous precendent.I'm amazed that the judge allowed this.
This was not a testimony or any part of the case. This was like the family reading a statement to the killer afterwards. Pretty much anything goes at that point as the case is already completely finished.
It's been quite a long standing precedent that family members have said something along the lines of "If xxxx was still here he would have said to you...."
This makes a mockery of the court system (Score:2)
I am genuinely shocked by this.
I'm an ex-Brit, in Britain before I left there was a tendency to spoof the US as not taking "serious" things seriously. The Day Today, a spoof of TV news that ridiculed the BBC's self importance at the time, used to have a segment where a breathless local American news reporter would supposedly cover an execution where the man being executed had chosen to dress as Elvis or something similarly bizarre (can't find that one, but this is a typical example. [youtube.com]) That kind of summed up
Re: (Score:2)
No you're not understanding what happened. This wasn't testimony or impact statement. This was done after sentencing. It's like the times when the family gets to say something to the accused, and in the past they often say things such as "If he was still alive he would tell you blah blah blah". This is normal and well established in such legal cases and has no bearing on the court case or process. No lawyers and judges shouldn't be disbarred. Editors and journalists should be reprimanded for not making clea
Re: (Score:2)
I perfectly well understand, I have no idea why you think I didn't. I never said it was testimony or an impact statement or even implied it.
It is absolutely not normal to use an electronic simulator to graphically put words in the mouths of a dead person.
It's disgusting. What the fuck is wrong with you thinking this is "normal"?
The judge and lawyers need to be disbarred.
Dumb story (Score:2)
May as well hire a novelist to study the person and write a script for a response. Stop chasing GenML stories so hard.
"devoutly religious and an army combat veteran" (Score:3)
is right up there with the old expression "fighting for peace is like fucking for celibacy"
Why so long? (Score:2)
Three and a half years later
WTF happened to swift justice in our society?
As for AI, it still isn't good for anything. Any court allowing made up testimony or evidence is now just a circus. Congratulations! The judge should be thrown out and the lawyer disbarred.
Chris deserved it (Score:2)
You're going to get out of your car and confront someone, most likely aggressively, you're asking for a bad time.
Non-representative sample (Score:2)
I'll ignore the "WTF" aspect of this, as that ground is well-trod by this point.
The videos and images they have are not representative of him. Not really. Not completely. They are representative of his best moments. Friends and family aren't keeping videos of the times he was angry, or argumentative, etc. This is fine and normal. But if you're going to feed those into an LLM and pretend that the result is "him", you've only got a simulacrum of part of his persona.
The whole thing is weird and, IMO, morbid, b
Cute, but (Score:2)
This is just going to make it WAY easier to appeal the sentence.
Re: (Score:3)
It was trained on the looks and voice of the faked person. What the fake said was 100% made up by the ones that created this atrocity.
Re: (Score:2)
No and if you think that then you have no idea what living in the US is like. Castle doctrine is only in certain states (i live in one, very little crime here, people rarely get shot) and only means you can shoot someone if they are forcing themselves on your property. The US is not whatever cartoon parody social media has fed you.
Re: (Score:2)