Saik0

B) demonstrates that even video evidence can be completely fabricated from whole cloth, and the opposition is more than capable of doing so to serve their own interests

It’s a victim impact statement. It’s not evidence. Victim Impact Statements are provided/read/whatever AFTER the finding of guilt, but before sentencing.

also, doesn’t that make this entire thing worse?

No? This is literally a Victim Impact Statement. We see these all the time after the case has determined guilt and before sentencing. This is the opportunity granted to the victims to outline how they feel on the matter.

There have been countless court cases where the victims say things like “I know that my husband would have understood and forgiven [… drone on for a 6 page essay]” or even done this exact thing, but without the “AI” video/audio (home videos with dubbed overlay of a loved one talking about what the deceased person would want/think about it). It’s not abnormal and has been accepted as a way for the aggrieved to voice their wishes to the court. All that’s changed here was the presentation. This didn’t affect the finding of if the person was guilty as it was played after the finding and was only played before sentencing. This is also the customary time where impact statements are made. The “AI” didn’t make the script. This is just a mildly fancier impact statement and that’s it. She could have dubbed it over home video with a fiverr voice actor. Would that change how you feel about it? I see no evidence that the court treated this anything different than any other impact statement. I don’t think anyone would be fooled that the dead person is magically alive and directly making the statement. It’s clear who made it the whole time.

The deceased’s sister wrote the script. AI/LLMs didnt write anything. It’s in the article. So the assumptions you made for the middle two paragraphs dont really apply to this specific news article.

Waaah cry more!

I added to the conversation by answering the question directly asked. Which someone who read the article would have known the answer for.

I’m sorry that reading comprehension is hard for you.

Acting like more than half of the comments on this post aren’t arguing in bad faith and thinking that the AI generated everything wholesale (content and script included) just shows how delusional you all are.

Edit: The funny part is that mkwt, the person I replied to, updooted the post. meaning that they legitimately found that information useful since they went out of their way to updoot. So you, and the other 5 people who don’t understand how to read, can pound sand.

The 37-year-old Army combat veteran’s family created the AI statement using a previously recorded video, a picture and a script written by the victim’s sister, Stacey Wales.

“I said, ‘I have to let him speak,’ and I wrote what he would have said, and I said, ‘That’s pretty good, I’d like to hear that if I was the judge,’” Wales told AZFamily.

From the article. Where Wales is his sister.

Wales herself is not ready to forgive Horcasitas, but when she wrote the script, she says she knew her brother would speak of forgiveness. “He stood for people, and for God, and for love,” she says.

From a related article. https://www.azfamily.com/2025/05/06/chandler-road-rage-shooting-victim-speaks-using-artificial-intelligence/

The outrage in the comments about this is stupid. It’s clear that this is an impact statement from the family… the “AI” used here was to just generate the image of him reading the impact statement that his sister wrote.

Was written and created by the family… they are victims. they just wrote it in the context of the deceased.

It’s directly relevant.

Miranda is required by law. The law creates the responsibility.

There is no requirement and thus no “responsibility” to post a notice of “why” onto a pop-up when you access a site. Just because me and you care, doesn’t make a responsibility for the company/entity running the website to capitulate to what we want.

Miranda is required by law… notifying random people who visit your website isn’t.

Its their responsibility to make clear the reason they require it.

Not really?

They don’t have to explain anything to you (though for many of US in this bubble in specific would probably run away from a service that’s so closed like this)… The vast majority of people who run into the Anubis setup will have no fucking clue what any of it means, nor give a shit about it. They just want to get to the content.

Nobody has to do it purposefully for it to still be shitty and revealing.

Or… and I could be wrong here…

It takes money to create the resource they’re providing and are simply asking to be paid for you to access it. At the very least to cut on bot scraping so login to prove you’re not a bot.

Doesn’t have to be shitty at all unless you believe that they shouldn’t be paid at all and should incur the cost of bots.

Way to comment on something from over a year ago. And no nobody lied to me. I read the manifesto that Hamas publicly published.

“both sides should stop the violence and talk it through”

Hard to have a sit-down talk when one side (Palestine) outright says their goal is to kill all Jews and Christians.