True, many people would have that problem, which is why the context in which the video was shown was acceptable; it was after the verdict had been given.

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.

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

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.

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.

Oh, I agree that it’s creepy and something that could very easily be abused. But in this case, it seems to have been the right move. Whether the dead brother would have approved, we’ll never know. But the living sister seemed to earnestly believe he would have, and that’s enough for me.

What makes it immoral? Nobody was hurt in any way, physically, emotionally, or financially. They disclosed the use of AI before showing the video. It even helped the perpetrator get a smaller sentence (IMO prison as a concept is inhumane, so less prison time is morally right).

Technology isn’t inherently good or evil. It entirely depends on the person using it. In this case, it had a very positive impact on everybody involved.

• Woman’s brother was killed in a road rage incident
• In preparing her victim impact statement for the court, she struggled to find a way to properly represent her brother’s voice
• Her husband works with AI and helped her generate a video of her brother for the victim impact statement
• The video was very well received and apparently true to her brother’s personality. Though she didn’t forgive the killer, she knew her brother would. So, in the AI video, “he” did.
• After all the real people made their statements to the judge, the video was played
• The judge loved it and thanked the woman

Oh no. I remember that video now. I didn’t need to remember that video. Why did I have to ask?!

I’ll probably regret asking, but I’m out of the loop and insatiably curious.

Brick in the window video?

It’s saying that copyright law doesn’t apply to AI training, because none of the data is copied. It’s more akin to a person reading an impossible amount at an impossible speed, then using what they read as inspiration for their own writing. Sure, you could ask an LLM trained on, say, Edgar Allen Poe’s works to recite the entirety of The Raven, but it can only “recall” similarly to a human, and will have just as many mistakes (probably more, really) in its recitation as a human would.

Spoken like someone who either didn’t read the article or has a deep misunderstanding of what AI training is.