Technology

69868 readers

3293 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
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.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

After an Arizona man was shot, an AI video of him addresses his killer in court (www.npr.org)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Thanks for sharing; I thought this was a fascinating read, especially since it ended on a positive note and not pure condemnation. It seems totally Black Mirror-esque, but I do wonder how many of the commentators here attacking it didn't read the article. The family obviously didn't make this decision lightly, given how much work it took to create it, and even the judge appreciated the novel approach. This is probably one of the best-case use scenarios relative to the abyss of unstoppable horror that awaits us.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fascinating but also kind of creepy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Perhaps; it seemed like they knew the decedent well enough to know that he would appreciate this, from everything that the article says. With that said, I also won't be surprised if templates for wills or living trusts add a no-duplication statement by default over the coming years.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If my family hired an actor to impersonate me at my killer's trial and give a prepared speech about how I felt about the situation it would be thrown out of court.

If my family hired a cartoonist or movie studio to create a moving scene with my face recreated by digital artists and a professional voice actor to talk about my forgiveness for my death, it would be thrown out of court.

That they used a generative program to do it and the Judge allowed the video to influence the sentence as if it were a statement by the deceased is deeply troubling.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state:

Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it.
No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions.

It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted.

From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175

influence the sentence

From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.

load more comments (2 replies)