True, many people would have that problem, which is why the context in which the video was shown was acceptable; it was after the verdict had been given.

But that’s what she did. She was upfront about the fact that it was an AI video reciting a script that she’d written.

So it would’ve been equally bad if instead of a video, she’d just read a statement she’d written in his voice? Something along the lines of:

My brother isn’t here to speak for himself, but if he was, he’d say blah blah blah

Why not? It wasn’t used to influence the trial in any way; it was just part of the victim impact statements after the verdict was rendered.

No doubt it’s weird, but it was also a genuine attempt by a sister to speak for her beloved brother. I think it’s beautiful and a perfect example of the importance of keeping an open mind, especially regarding things that make us uncomfortable.

Oh, I agree that it’s creepy and something that could very easily be abused. But in this case, it seems to have been the right move. Whether the dead brother would have approved, we’ll never know. But the living sister seemed to earnestly believe he would have, and that’s enough for me.

What makes it immoral? Nobody was hurt in any way, physically, emotionally, or financially. They disclosed the use of AI before showing the video. It even helped the perpetrator get a smaller sentence (IMO prison as a concept is inhumane, so less prison time is morally right).

Technology isn’t inherently good or evil. It entirely depends on the person using it. In this case, it had a very positive impact on everybody involved.

• Woman’s brother was killed in a road rage incident
• In preparing her victim impact statement for the court, she struggled to find a way to properly represent her brother’s voice
• Her husband works with AI and helped her generate a video of her brother for the victim impact statement
• The video was very well received and apparently true to her brother’s personality. Though she didn’t forgive the killer, she knew her brother would. So, in the AI video, “he” did.
• After all the real people made their statements to the judge, the video was played
• The judge loved it and thanked the woman

You’ve already got some good answers, so I just wanna say that, as one who appreciates personal fashion, that is a nice outfit! Great use of creative clashing between the fishnet and the poncho. And the belt is a good bridge for them.

Good stuff. Important for people who want to play the game but don’t want to give money to Bethesda and, by extension, their genocide-complicit parent company, Microsoft.

Dude, I’m a prog head, and I have to say you are so, so wrong. Some of the best prog rock has released in this millennium.

Look, dude, I don’t have the energy to teach you in addition to my own kid at home. Improve your reading comprehension, reread my last comment, and maybe we can have a reasonable discussion.

It’s as similar to racism as any prejudice is. It’s just a lazy term coined, I’d bet, for the sake of quick understanding within the context of its era, rather than for semantic accuracy.

I tried to find the correct word or phrase to use, and the consensus seems to be “cultural racism”, so I guess it’s technically a kind of racism, even though it doesn’t directly relate to race. “Culturism” would be a more accurate word, I think.

No, the only one approaching racism here is you, as you’re the only one equating culture to race. A black German is the same as a white German.

Oh no. I remember that video now. I didn’t need to remember that video. Why did I have to ask?!

I’ll probably regret asking, but I’m out of the loop and insatiably curious.

Brick in the window video?

The vaudevillian steampunk band Steam Powered Giraffe apparently had the same thought, and made a song about it.

https://open.spotify.com/track/2d4Rf57220M7TQ6JkZE0Bh

Take me with you.