Using AI to be your voice when you have trouble articulating something you want to say has to be one of the best uses of the technology I have seen to date. It makes me wonder what other uses this tech could have, especially for people who are neurodivergent or disabled.
An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it.
Submitted 1 day ago by Tea@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world
https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-ai-courts-nyc-5c97cba3f3757d9ab3c2e5840127f765
Comments
_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 hours ago
Tungsten5@lemm.ee 15 hours ago
This shit, and later on in the article when it talks about an Arizona court using AI, makes me want to hate AI forever. Fuck this, man
_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 hours ago
A person has social anxiety, and that makes you hate AI? That sounds pretty ableist.
Tungsten5@lemm.ee 7 hours ago
No. Try to think critically next time. AI has been mostly garbage which is why I dislike it. It should not be used in court. Did you even read the article? If so, re-read it
besselj@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Can’t wait to see what silliness ensues when “sovereign citizens” start using AI avatars to represent themselves too
Infinite@lemmy.zip 18 hours ago
The video will need to be at a 45⁰ angle and misuse a lot of Latin.
TheFogan@programming.dev 1 day ago
I mean honestly without the theoretical misdirection, I’d find this one of the better examples of a reasonable use of AI within a courtroom. IE it sounds like he asked to represent himself. He presented a video which, to my knowledge all the arguements were written by the person himself. Second the judge asked who it was he said the avitar is AI, presenting his arguements.
So in short, the only thing that’s attempted to be bypassed, are biases related to his appearence and speech.
IMO this concept could be the real future of trials if done right. Imagine say if we used say extreme facial tracking AI, hid the defendent’s actual appearence, but allowed the defendants to use avitars, that still map out any facial expressions and body language they make during the trial… but actually conceal the defendent’s actual race and appearance. We could literally be looking at the one solution to the racial bias… the reality that with the same evidence, race plays a huge part in conviction rate and harshness of sentences.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Not that AI is the most effective representation or that it should replace public defenders, but this doesn’t seem far off from scolding a defendant for using Google to research his arguments.
madame_gaymes@programming.dev 1 day ago
It’s a really interesting thought, and under ideal circumstances would work IMO. Obviously things are never ideal and there would be all sorts of roadblocks and gotchas as something like this was developed. Things we could think of now, and other things we probably couldn’t. Not to mention the whole problem of, “who develops it and how much trust can you give them?”
As I was reading the idea, it made me think of the suits from A Scanner Darkly that the undercover narcs wore. Basically heavily obfuscated the voice and displayed always-changing patchwork human features to anyone observing from the outside, including trying to hide body shape. Something like that could get similar results.
A Scanner Darkly movie representation of the suit
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 19 hours ago
Guess they will start teaching vtubing in high school then.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 21 hours ago
I think the major problem here would be that all the avatars would be pretty white women if you wanted to really game the system.
Or black if they’re accused of a hate crime, or whatever.
That just seems… Weird.
reksas@sopuli.xyz 14 hours ago
just have couple of standardised avatars. It would be maddness if everyone could choose whatever.
Atherel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Why even keep facial expressions? People who are good at acting can abuse it by mimicking what’s expected from them and for people with e.g. autism who have problems with body language it can backfire hardly. Let facts and evidence be the base for a sentence.
TheFogan@programming.dev 21 hours ago
true, though at that point an avatar itself is unnecessary. Maybe that should be the standard, just change procedure to not ever bring the defendant into the court room.
Admitted I do suppose the biggest problem with the hypothetical goal of hide the defendant in the court room, is that some of the evidence is going to obviously require what the defendant looks like (Eye witness testimony, video surveillance clips etc…).
I do agree with the general gist though, if we could run courts without ever showing the appearance or even names of the people involved, it would be the ideal system to eliminate bias’s
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 20 hours ago
How do you know if it is done right or wrong?
It is fake, and it is a manipulative kind of fake.
You assume some honorable purpose, but that isn’t the only possible purpose.
Even “bypassing biases” would be a kind of manipulation, and you can never know what other manipulation is going on at the same time. It could exploit other biases. It could try other tricks that we are not evil enough to imagine, and it would be “better” at it than any real human.
TheFogan@programming.dev 19 hours ago
The point is the idea, that in general a system could be applied where… say universally the same avitar is applied to everyone while on trial. The fact is “looking trustworthy”, is inherently an unfair advantage, that has no real bearing on actual innocence or guilt of which we know these bias’s have helped people that better evidence have resulted in innocent people getting convicted, and guilty people walking.
Theoretically a system in the future in which everyone must use an avitar to prevent these bias’s would almost certainly lead to more accurate court trials. Of course the one hurdle in my mind that would render it difficult is how to accurately deal with evidence that requires appearence to asses (IE most importantly eye witness descriptions and video footage). When it comes to DNA, Fingerprints, forensics, and hell the lawyers arguements themselves, there’s no question in my mind that perception with no factual use, has serious consiquences that harm any attempt to make an appropriately fair system.