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.
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
It's saying that copyright law doesn't apply to AI training, because none of the data is copied. It's more akin to a person reading an impossible amount at an impossible speed, then using what they read as inspiration for their own writing. Sure, you could ask an LLM trained on, say, Edgar Allen Poe's works to recite the entirety of The Raven, but it can only "recall" similarly to a human, and will have just as many mistakes (probably more, really) in its recitation as a human would.
DS9 as a whole is my favorite Trek series, but the worst episode in all of Star Trek, in my opinion, is from the show: Move Along Home, episode nine of season one. The gang gets trapped in an alien's board game, and hijinks ensue. It features all the worst things about Trek, and none of the best. It's campy but not charming, it's got nonsense words that are completely unnecessary and never again referenced, its stakes are simultaneously too high and insignificant, and the writing is just bad.
As a stranger on the internet, I would be remiss if I didn't correct you: DS9 is famously the leastepisodic classic Trek series. The word you should've used to describe it is "continuous."
It's not, though. This is the first sentence in the article:
As Michael McGrady pointed out in his recent guest post for Techdirt, nearly 41 percent of Americans subject to age verification laws targeting porn and, of course, porn consumers.
It can be inferred, of course, from that line, but isn't explicitly stated.
Oh, I completely agree that the issues plaguing us are driven by class disparity, not political or ethical disagreements. And yes, there's no doubt that Team Blue trends more toward progressivism than Team Red.
They play to different demographics, but ultimately, they're just different shades of conservative and only out for themselves.
That being said, given no other choice, I'd rather have the politician who pretends to care over the one who doesn't even try to hide their contempt for common decency.
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.