Family uses AI to create video for deadly Chandler road rage victim's own impact statement

[Nevilledog]

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/chandler/family-uses-ai-to-create-video-for-deadly-chandler-road-rage-victims-own-impact-statement

CHANDLER, AZ — Christopher Pelkey was killed in a road rage incident in Chandler in 2021, but last month, artificial intelligence brought him back to life during his killer’s sentencing hearing.

It was the first time in Arizona judicial history — and possibly nationwide — that AI has been used to create a deceased victim’s own impact statement.

The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard
Pelkey’s sister and brother-in-law used the technology to recreate his image and voice likeness to “talk” to the courtroom about his life and the day he met Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, who shot him during a confrontation near Gilbert and Germann roads.

“In another life, we probably could have been friends,” the AI creation of the 37-year-old Army veteran said, addressing Horcasitas. “I believe in forgiveness…”

The AI video also included real video clips from videos taken while he was alive, along with some of his personality and humor, while showing a real photo he once took with an "old age" filter.

*snip*

Like a Black Mirror episode....dystopian

[Ms. Toad]

1. That sentence will almost certainly be appealed on the basis of that video.

The state asked for a 9.5 year sentence. The judge imposed 10.5 after being moved by the video which put words into the victim's mouth which might or might not represent what the victim would have felt.

[Maru Kitteh]

2. That was my first thought as well. The family probably was told

this as well. For whatever reason, the family and/or team went ahead with it anyway.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Their attorney, at least publicly, is saying it is perfectly fine.

That the victim is able to present their testimony in whatever format they wish. So that arguably gives the parents free reign to use artificial intelligence to speak for them - but it was the (deceased) victim who was apparently speaking - and had no ability to choose how (or if) to speak.

[k_buddy762]

3. Very very slippery slope

[Coventina]

4. How could the defense let that go unchallenged?

That's some messed-up bullshit right there.

[Ms. Toad]

6. It may have been challenged and overruled. n/t

[harumph]

7. So a fictionalized made up account put forth as a "victim's statement," Ok then.