• Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Those were not his words. They were someone else’s words spoken by a very realistic puppet they made of him after he died.

    That’s weird at best, and does not belong in a court.

    • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      No doubt it’s weird, but it was also a genuine attempt by a sister to speak for her beloved brother. I think it’s beautiful and a perfect example of the importance of keeping an open mind, especially regarding things that make us uncomfortable.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        So we agree on one point, weirdness.

        It’s still got no business in a courtroom.

        • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Why not? It wasn’t used to influence the trial in any way; it was just part of the victim impact statements after the verdict was rendered.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Because a judge allowing anyone to represent their views in court as though those views belong to someone else is a textbook “bad idea.” It is a misrepresentation of the truth.

            • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              So it would’ve been equally bad if instead of a video, she’d just read a statement she’d written in his voice? Something along the lines of:

              My brother isn’t here to speak for himself, but if he was, he’d say blah blah blah

              • Nougat@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                24 hours ago

                Not at all, because it would have been her making claims about what she believes her brother would have said, and not a simulacrum of her brother speaking her words with his voice.

                • BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  But that’s what she did. She was upfront about the fact that it was an AI video reciting a script that she’d written.

                  • Nougat@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    23 hours ago

                    You can say that all you want, but when your brain is presented with a video of a person, using that person’s voice, you’re going to take what’s being said as being from that person in the video.