this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
311 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
68440 readers
3188 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Using AI to be your voice when you have trouble articulating something you want to say has to be one of the best uses of the technology I have seen to date. It makes me wonder what other uses this tech could have, especially for people who are neurodivergent or disabled.
In this case there was no real issue. He was trying to get free advertising out of the court. But also, we've had animated avatars and text to voice for over a decade now. This isn't an AI use case.
Yeah honestly I don't see a problem with this. If it's his own words why does it matter if it's AI speaking or himself? Even if it's not his own words, he could just as easily say the same shit on camera, why does the person in the video needs to be him?
Because he's advertising his AI product in the courtroom. He was present in the courtroom as well, and he lied about having a "speech impediment" to get his AI on screen in the courtroom.
That's the issue here.
The avatar is an unnecessary distraction. Can the video be just audio? Use that. Can the video be audio and text? Use that.
Plus if plaintiffs and defendants can sometimes get away with certain outcomes because of what they look like (this has been studied and observed), imagine criminals using cute little teens that happen to look like the judges' kids to argue the case.
I'd say a compromise would be that the avatar be the same for all court cases; chosen by the court system. I'd be sort of okay with this.
And the whole AI destroying the planet is a topic for another moment.
All good points but keep in mind the current system is racist
So, even if avatars were allowed to happen tomorrow night... You'd still have a "oh no, the system chose a black person for you, good luck..." Unsolved dilemma
Good food for thought all around
That's why I said that the avatar should be the same for all court cases. Let's say Microsoft Office Clippy, though it could have been a stick-man or Bob Ross.