I mean the concept seems pretty obvious. Obviously it won’t be supprising when a film is made completely through AI… What will be suprising will be if it doesn’t suck.

I find it weird that this is being viewed as a difference between the 2, when to me the quotes seem pretty much the same. IE the father

father: “I see you did this, it’s terrible and I want nothing to do with it, it’s an insult to life”.

Son: “I don’t think it’s unlikely people will make a movie entirely through AI, whether anyone will want to see it is anyone’s guess”.

I don’t see any quotes from the son on his opinion of quality, and if anything I see skepticism towards quality. I don’t think anyone can deny, a lot of people are going to try really hard to make full movies entirely from AI. That’s as obvious of a statement as “people will try to make cars that drive themselves”.

Again I think our problem is the concept of what we are calling “AI”. IE I’m only talking of basically AI Generated art/avitars. If done in a consistant way I don’t think it even quite qualifies as AI. Really just glorified puppetry. There’s no “trustworhtyness”, because it doesn’t deal in facts. It’s job is literally just to take a consistant 3D model, and make it move like the defendent moves. It’s old tech used in movies etc… for years, and since it’s literally dealing in only appearence any “hacks” etc… would be plainly visible to any observers

The point is the idea, that in general a system could be applied where… say universally the same avitar is applied to everyone while on trial. The fact is “looking trustworthy”, is inherently an unfair advantage, that has no real bearing on actual innocence or guilt of which we know these bias’s have helped people that better evidence have resulted in innocent people getting convicted, and guilty people walking.

Theoretically a system in the future in which everyone must use an avitar to prevent these bias’s would almost certainly lead to more accurate court trials. Of course the one hurdle in my mind that would render it difficult is how to accurately deal with evidence that requires appearence to asses (IE most importantly eye witness descriptions and video footage). When it comes to DNA, Fingerprints, forensics, and hell the lawyers arguements themselves, there’s no question in my mind that perception with no factual use, has serious consiquences that harm any attempt to make an appropriately fair system.

true, though at that point an avatar itself is unnecessary. Maybe that should be the standard, just change procedure to not ever bring the defendant into the court room.

Admitted I do suppose the biggest problem with the hypothetical goal of hide the defendant in the court room, is that some of the evidence is going to obviously require what the defendant looks like (Eye witness testimony, video surveillance clips etc…).

I do agree with the general gist though, if we could run courts without ever showing the appearance or even names of the people involved, it would be the ideal system to eliminate bias’s

again though missing the point, to my knowledge at least in the article, I don’t see anything to imply the arguements were AI. At least it sounds like the person is claiming the AI was only used for the face and voice.

So on the whole, it just sounds like he wrote the script himself. The AI doesn’t need to pass the bar in this example. because the AI is just a glorified costume. You don’t have to pass the bar to represent yourself, and at least with the information presented in this arguement, the AI did not create any of the arguements, only read a script written by the person.

I mean honestly without the theoretical misdirection, I’d find this one of the better examples of a reasonable use of AI within a courtroom. IE it sounds like he asked to represent himself. He presented a video which, to my knowledge all the arguements were written by the person himself. Second the judge asked who it was he said the avitar is AI, presenting his arguements.

So in short, the only thing that’s attempted to be bypassed, are biases related to his appearence and speech.

IMO this concept could be the real future of trials if done right. Imagine say if we used say extreme facial tracking AI, hid the defendent’s actual appearence, but allowed the defendants to use avitars, that still map out any facial expressions and body language they make during the trial… but actually conceal the defendent’s actual race and appearance. We could literally be looking at the one solution to the racial bias… the reality that with the same evidence, race plays a huge part in conviction rate and harshness of sentences.

They hate my tarrifs… that proves they work!!!

can you explain where I’m missing here? unless I’m majorly missing something, is there a benefit for people who don’t own, or regularly travel in private planes?

This is a good thing for us normal humans. More privacy is always a good thing. Let it spread further…

I mean do we have any reason to expect it to travel further? The system made a few billionares feel uncomfortable, now they don’t feel uncomfortable, the law isn’t going to expand.

If a face tracking or car tracking system were to go live. Billionares would find a way to exempt themselves from it, but make sure it was live for everyone else. The reason there aren’t exceptions made for this rule, are because there’s not a whole lot of poor private plane owners.

Great concept, now to find out how they sabatoge it, or ignore the results or just squash it. Just like all the work from home results from work from home after covid, with report after report of productivity going up, only for then every major tech company to decide to roll it all back.