this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
520 points (95.9% liked)

Technology

69867 readers
3099 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
520
A Judge Accepted AI Video Testimony From a Dead Man (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 day ago by riot@slrpnk.net to c/technology@lemmy.world
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.’”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anachrohack@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] EveningPancakes@lemm.ee 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.world 0 points 1 day 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.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.”

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

It happened BEFORE sentencing

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] anachrohack@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Every single one of those people should have their licenses suspended. AI, which is inherently a misrepresentation of truth, belongs nowhere near a courtroom. They should legitimately be ashamed of themselves for allowing such an abortion into a courtroom