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.’”
If anyone ever did this with my likeness after death, even with good intentions, i would haunt the fuck out of them.
You can create an AI avatar before your death that will haunt them on your behalf.
I like AI, sort of. But this is ghoulish.
deleted by creator
I found this interesting. The AI said it believes in forgiveness.
“To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” the AI Pelkey says. “In another life we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness, in God who forgives, I always have. And I still do.”
But the victim’s sister, who created the AI did it to try to get the maximum sentence for the defendant.
The prosecution against Horcasitas was only seeking nine years for the killing. The maximum was 10 and a half years. Stacey had asked the judge for the full sentence during her own impact statement. The judge granted her request, something Stacey credits—in part—to the AI video.
Yeah, a way to play both sides of pushing for a harsh sentence whole you use a puppet to drive empathy…
Should have been a slam dunk without the video.
This judge needs to be disbarred and have a forced mental evaluation.
The fuckin’ dude’s wife wrote the speech the AI read… I don’t care how much you know someone, putting words in their mouths like that feels wrong. And the fucking judge added a year to the sentence citing the power of the video.
Fucking absurd.
Yeah, this is super fucked up. I think that it would be powerful and completely reasonable to have the AI read actual words he wrote, like from old text messages, emails, or whatever. That is a legitimate way to bring someone to life—completely ethical if they wrote the material. This is a disgrace to justice and ridiculous.
I thought it was his sister who wrote the speech the AI read, but yeah, this whole thing feels wrong and gross.
AI should absolutely never be allowed in court. Defense is probably stoked about this because it’s obviously a mistrial. Judge should be reprimanded for allowing that shit
It was after the verdict of the trial. This was displayed during the sentencing hearing where family members get to state how the death affected them. It’s still fucked up, but to be clear it wasn’t used during the trial.
Sentencing is still part of the carriage of justice. Fake statements like this should not be allowed until after all verdicts and punishments are decided.
AI should absolutely never be allowed in court. Defense is probably stoked about this because it’s obviously a mistrial. Judge should be reprimanded for allowing that shit
You didn’t read the article.
This isn’t grounds for a mistrial, the trial was already over. This happened during the sentencing phase. The defense didn’t object to the statements.
From the article:
Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”
It happened BEFORE sentencing
In the US criminal justice system, Sentencing happens after the Trial. A mistrial requires rules to be violated during the Trial.
Also, there were at least 3 people in that room that both have a Juris Doctor and know the Arizona Court Rules, one of them is representing the defendant. Not a single one of them had any objections about allowing this statement to be made.
Every single one of those people should have their licenses suspended. AI, which is inherently a misrepresentation of truth, belongs nowhere near a courtroom. They should legitimately be ashamed of themselves for allowing such an abortion into a courtroom
AI, which is inherently a misrepresentation of truth
Oh, you’re one of those
This is basically “Weekend at Bernie’s”, using the likeness of a dead man as a puppet.
Honestly, all she’s done has created history’s most gaping opportunity for an appeal.
If I get killed and my family forgives the killer on my behalf I am haunting their asses so hard.
Wow, this is super distasteful and manipulative.
This is a clown show and the judge who let this travesty happen is an idiot.
I feel the defense should have insisted on having their own ai of jesus talk about forgiveness.
It’s my understanding the AI dead guy actually did talk about forgiveness
yeah even if he plead for leniency it does not matter. Its like admitting a diary written by someone else from his perspective. it just makes no sense and has nothing to do with anything.
Pretty fucked.
The judge should have had the sense to keep this shitty craft project out of the courtroom. Victim statements should also be banned as manipulative glurge.
“I loved that AI, and thank you for that…” Lang said immediately before sentencing Horcasitas.
I hope they win that appeal an get a new sentencing or a new trial even. That sounds like a horrible misuse of someone’s likeness. Even if my family used a direct quote from me I’d be PISSED if they recreated my face and voice without my permission.
They can’t appeal on this issue because the defense didn’t object to the statement and, therefore, did not preserve the issue for appeal.
