Looking at the downvotes, remember upvoting an article ≠ an endorsement of the shitty technology being discussed in the article.
We shit on the technology in the comments, and upvote it so more of us can read about it and shit on it.
this post was submitted on 07 May 2025
100 points (86.2% liked)
Technology
72372 readers
3832 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
Maybe they like the technology and that's why they're downvoting the story.
I just can't upvote this trash story even though you are correct about the usual reason for upvoting posts even when the subject matter is terrible.
If I am murdered please don’t do this. I do not care if you feel like it will help you process the events
That should never be allowed in court. What a crock of shit.
It was a victim impact statement, not subject to the rules of evidence. The shooter had already been found guilty, and this was an impact statement from the victim’s sister, to sway how the shooter should be sentenced. The victim’s bill of rights says that victims should be allowed to choose the method in which they make an impact statement, and his sister chose the AI video.
I agree that it shouldn’t be admissible as evidence. But that’s not really what’s being discussed here, because it wasn’t being used as evidence. The shooter was already found guilty.
The AI moralises on the importance that not everyone gets to be old and then forgives the man who killed him. Fuck that garbage.
Since you know it was the wife who pushed for it.
It sounds like it was played after a sentencing was given? Would be kind of sketchy if not.
This was played before sentencing. It doesn't say it here, but the article I read earlier today stated that because of this video, the judge issued a sentence greater than the maximum recommended by the State. If true, then it really calls into question the sentence itself and how impartial the judge was.
Oh - then that’s fucked up. Synthesizing some narrative to potentially coerce an outcome seems like a slippery slope. (Not necessarily saying that’s exactly what happened here.)
It appears this was a Victim impact statement.
A victim impact statement is a written or oral statement made as part of the judicial legal process, which allows crime victims the opportunity to speak during the sentencing of the convicted person or at subsequent parole hearings.
From the article (emphasizes mine):
But the use of AI for a victim impact statement appears novel, according to Maura Grossman, a professor at the University of Waterloo who has studied the applications of AI in criminal and civil cases. She added, that she did not see any major legal or ethical issues in Pelkey's case.
"Because this is in front of a judge, not a jury, and because the video wasn't submitted as evidence per se, its impact is more limited," she told NPR via email.
Ah yes, appeals to emotion, my favorite part of the judicial process.
It feels like that's the point of victim impact statements, even though it's probably not supposed to be
Reminds me of the crime skeleton, shout out to anyone who knows what I'm talking about.
Who could forget truly an inventionbefore it's time.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/criminal-confession-skeleton-patent
So a virtual corpse puppet?