'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.’”

  • enkers@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    13·
    1 day ago

    Just to be clear, they were fully transparent about it:

    “Hello, just to be clear for everyone seeing this, I am a version of Chris Pelkey recreated through AI that uses my picture and my voice profile,” the stilted avatar says. “I was able to be digitally regenerated to share with you today. Here is insight into who I actually was in real life.”

    However, I think the following is somewhat misleading:

    The video goes back to the AI avatar. “I would like to make my own impact statement,” the avatar says.

    I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. It seems that the motivation was genuine compassion from the victim’s family, and a desire to honestly represent victim to the best of their ability. But ultimately, it’s still the victim’s sister’s impact statement, not his.

    Here’s what the judge had to say:

    “I loved that AI, and thank you for that. As angry as you are, and as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness, and I know Mr. Horcasitas could appreciate it, but so did I,” Lang said immediately before sentencing Horcasitas. “I love the beauty in what Christopher, and I call him Christopher—I always call people by their last names, it’s a formality of the court—but I feel like calling him Christopher as we’ve gotten to know him today. I feel that that was genuine, because obviously the forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today. But it also says something about the family, because you told me how angry you were, and you demanded the maximum sentence. And even though that’s what you wanted, you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.”

    I am concerned that it could set a precedent for misuse, though. The whole thing seems like very grey to me. I’d suggest everyone read the whole article before passing judgement.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      1 day ago

      I was able to be digitally regenerated

      I would like to make my own impact statement

      you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.

      These, especially the second, cross the line imo. The judge acknowledges it’s AI but is acting like it isn’t, and same for the sister especially.

    • LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      9·
      1 day ago

      Your emotions don’t always line up with “what you know” this is why evidence rules exist in court. Humans don’t work that way. This is why there can be mistrials if specific kinds of evidence is revealed to the jury that shouldn’t have been shown.

      Digital reenactments shouldn’t be allowed, even with disclaimers to the court. It is fiction and has no place here.

      • booly@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        23 hours ago

        why evidence rules exist in court.

        Sure, but not for victim impact statements. Hearsay, speculation, etc. have always been fair game for victim impact statements, and victim statements aren’t even under oath. Plus the other side isn’t allowed to cross examine them. It’s not evidence, and it’s not “testimony” in a formal sense (because it’s not under oath or under penalty of perjury).