AI version of Dead Arizona Man appeals to Killer during the conviction

Chris Pelkey ​​died three years ago at a street rage in Arizona.

But with the help of artificial intelligence, he returned in the conviction of his murderer at the beginning of this month to give a victim's testimony himself.

Family members said they used the burgeoning technology to use Mr. Pelkey's own words to talk about the incident that took his life.

While some experts argue that the unique use of AI is only a further step into the future, others say that this could become a slippery tendency to use the technology in legal cases.

His family used voice recordings, videos and pictures of Mr. Pelkey, who was 37 years old at his death to reproduce him in a video with AI, said his sister Stacey Wales of the BBC.

Ms. Wales said she wrote the words that the AI ​​version read in court based on how forgiving she knew her brother.

“To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, is a shame that we came across each other under these circumstances that day,” said Mr. Pelkey's AI version. “We could probably have been friends in another life.”

“I believe in forgiveness and a god who is forgiving. I always have and I still do it,” continues the KI Verison from Mr. Pelkey ​​- on with a gray baseball cap.

The technology was used in the condemnation of his murderer – Horcasitas was already found to be guilty by a jury – about four years after Horcasitas had shot Mr. Pelkey ​​in a red light in Arizona.

The judge in Arizona, who supervised the case, to death, seemed to appreciate the use of AI at the hearing. He condemned Horcasitas for 10 and a half years in prison for manslaughter.

“I loved this AI, thanks for that. As angry as they are, the family rightly so angry, I heard the forgiveness,” said Richter Lang. “I feel that it was real.”

Paul Grimm, a retired federal judge and professor for Duke Law School, said the BBC that he was not surprised that the AI ​​is using Horcasitas.

He realizes that the dishes in Arizona Ki have already used in another way. For example, if the state's Supreme Court issues a decision, it has a AI system that makes these decisions digestive for humans.

And Mr. Grimm said because it was used without the jury present, only a judge decides that the technology was approved.

“We will lean ourselves [AI] From case to case, but the technology is irresistible, ”he said.

However, some experts like Derek, Professor of Economic Ethics at Carnegie Mellon University, are concerned about the use of AI and the precedent, which is the case.

While Mr. Life does not question the intention or actions of this family, he fears that not all uses of AI match the wishes of a victim.

“If we have other people who do this in the future, will we always get loyalty to what the person, the victim in this case, wanted?” Asked Mr. Leben.

For Ms. Wales, however, this gave her brother the last word.

“We took this with ethics and morality because this is a powerful tool. How a hammer can be used to break a window or tear down a wall, it can also be used as a tool for building a house, and so we used this technology,” she said.