Comment

Comment on An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it.

Yeah honestly I don’t see a problem with this. If it’s his own words why does it matter if it’s AI speaking or himself? Even if it’s not his own words, he could just as easily say the same shit on camera, why does the person in the video needs to be him?

source

Sort:hotnew top

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

why does it matter if it’s AI speaking or himself?

Because he’s advertising his AI product in the courtroom. He was present in the courtroom as well, and he lied about having a “speech impediment” to get his AI on screen in the courtroom.

That’s the issue here.

source
elbarto777@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The avatar is an unnecessary distraction. Can the video be just audio? Use that. Can the video be audio and text? Use that.

Plus if plaintiffs and defendants can sometimes get away with certain outcomes because of what they look like (this has been studied and observed), imagine criminals using cute little teens that happen to look like the judges’ kids to argue the case.

I’d say a compromise would be that the avatar be the same for all court cases; chosen by the court system. I’d be sort of okay with this.

And the whole AI destroying the planet part is a topic for another moment.

source
- Sizing2673@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  All good points but keep in mind the current system is racist
  
  So, even if avatars were allowed to happen tomorrow night… You’d still have a “oh no, the system chose a black person for you, good luck…” Unsolved dilemma
  
  Good food for thought all around
  
  source
  - elbarto777@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That’s why I said that the avatar should be the same for all court cases. Let’s say Microsoft Office Clippy, though it could have been a stick-man or Bob Ross.
    
    source