Can’t wait to see what silliness ensues when “sovereign citizens” start using AI avatars to represent themselves too
An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it.
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Tea@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world
https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-ai-courts-nyc-5c97cba3f3757d9ab3c2e5840127f765
Comments
besselj@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Infinite@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
The video will need to be at a 45⁰ angle and misuse a lot of Latin.
BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The judge was angry that this guy was pretending to have speech issues so he can use her courtroom for free publicity for his AI tool business, watch the entire video, don’t just read a click bait headline
Tungsten5@lemm.ee 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago
A person has social anxiety, and that makes you hate AI? That sounds pretty ableist.
Tungsten5@lemm.ee 3 weeks 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
_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
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.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
In this case there was no real issue. He was trying to get free advertising out of the court. But also, we’ve had animated avatars and text to voice for over a decade now. This isn’t an AI use case.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
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?
elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks 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.
hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You can either represent yourself or claim you can’t communicate and need assistance. You don’t get to claim to represent yourself and then demand they let you have an AI representative. Just hire a lawyer to represent you, that’s what they are literally there for.
hedgehogging_the_bed@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Please also see people who need employees to assist with the touchscreen ordering and self-check. If you want to talk to a person, please use the line for talking to a cashier.
billeyedblind@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctv4ZQRZgbA&t=991
Here’s the video in question starting at 19:30
jhymesba@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Seems like the mistake here was surprising a judge in their courtroom.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
19:30
Thank you sir. They play the video clip for like 5 seconds, and then she tears into him. Worth it.
SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
You have no rights under ape law!
TheFogan@programming.dev 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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
Foxymophandle@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
It um, me. Um, I’m not a cat
Atherel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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
TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
Guess they will start teaching vtubing in high school then.
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago
just have couple of standardised avatars. It would be maddness if everyone could choose whatever.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Why is that a problem? It gets rid of bias and would actually help minorities defeat bias in the court and get a more fair judgement.
Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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.