'I Loved That AI:' Judge Moved by AI-Generated Avatar of Man Killed in Road Rage Incident
www.404media.co
How the sister of Christopher Pelkey made an avatar of him to testify in court.

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.’”

    • FriendBesto@lemmy.mlEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Watched the video, it is creepy. It is also edited. Wife seems to just have put words on her dead husband’s AI.

      This has not set a legal precedent. WTF.

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      3 months ago

      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.”

        • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          In the US criminal justice system, Sentencing happens after the Trial. A mistrial requires rules to be violated during the Trial.

          Also, there were at least 3 people in that room that both have a Juris Doctor and know the Arizona Court Rules, one of them is representing the defendant. Not a single one of them had any objections about allowing this statement to be made.

    • EveningPancakes@lemm.eeEnglish
      201·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        43·
        3 months ago

        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.

  • ooterness@lemmy.worldEnglish
    341·
    3 months ago

    This is basically “Weekend at Bernie’s”, using the likeness of a dead man as a puppet.

  • dmtalon@infosec.pubEnglish
    41·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • reksas@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    1252·
    3 months ago

    it would have been about as respectful to use the corpse as a puppet and put up a show for the court with it.

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    81·
    3 months ago

    “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.

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
      32·
      3 months ago

      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.

  • Hissing Sid @lemy.lolEnglish
    9·
    3 months ago

    I could see this being used in retributive justice to help humanize victims to perpetrators but it should really be a private thing and not a means of getting a confession or shaming the perpetrator further