An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it.
-
A person has social anxiety, and that makes you hate AI? That sounds pretty ableist.
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
-
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
Yes, I did read it. I'm guessing you did not. if you had, you would know why he used the AI video. This was a very constructive use of AI that not only didn't hurt anyone, but helped someone with a problem.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
You have no rights under ape law!
-
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.
-
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?
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 is a topic for another moment.
-
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 is a topic for another moment.
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
-
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
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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
-
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.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctv4ZQRZgbA&t=991
Here's the video in question starting at 19:30
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctv4ZQRZgbA&t=991
Here's the video in question starting at 19:30
19:30
Thank you sir. They play the video clip for a few seconds, and then she tears into him. Worth 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?
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctv4ZQRZgbA&t=991
Here's the video in question starting at 19:30
Seems like the mistake here was surprising a judge in their courtroom.
-
Yes, I did read it. I'm guessing you did not. if you had, you would know why he used the AI video. This was a very constructive use of AI that not only didn't hurt anyone, but helped someone with a problem.
They didn't have a problem that needed the AI to help. Unless the problem was "how do I get free advertising?". This other comment has the timestamp and video (https://sh.itjust.works/comment/17839497), and the judge specifically says that the defendant has been in that court many times before, and now that they have an AI business, suddenly they have a problem and need the AI, without informing the court of the "need" for such a tool.
-
System shared this topic
