Chris Pelkey’s AI-rendered impact statement shown in court
Chris Pelkey bin die inside road kasala shooting for Arizona three years ago.
But wit di help of artificial intelligence, e return earlier dis month for im killer sentencing to deliver victim’s statement imsef.
Family members say dem used di technology to let Mr Pelkey use im own words to tok about di incident wey take im life.
While some experts say di unique use of AI na just anoda step into di future, odas say e go become slippery slope for using di technology in legal cases.
Ms Wales say she write di words wey di AI version read for court based on how forgiving she know say her brother be.
“To Gabriel Horcasitas, di man wey shoot me, na shame say we encounter each oda dat day for dose circumstances,” di AI version of Mr Pelkey tok for court. “For anoda life, we probably fit be friends.”
“I believe in forgiveness, and a God wey dey forgive. I always believe and I still do,” di AI verison of Mr Pelkey – wey wear a grey baseball cap – continue.
Dem use di technology during di killer sentencing – jury bin don already find Horcasitas guilty – four years afta Horcasitas shoot Mr Pelkey for one red light for Arizona.
Di Arizona judge wey bin oversee di case, Todd Lang, seem to appreciate di use of AI for di hearing. E sentence Horcasitas to 10-and-a-half years in prison on manslaughter charges.
“I love dat AI, thank you for dat. As angry as you dey, as justifiably angry as di family dey, I hear di forgiveness,” Judge Lang tok. “I feel say e dey genuine.”
Paul Grimm, wey be retired federal judge and Duke Law School professor, tell di BBC say e no dey surprised to see AI used for di Horcasitas sentencing.
E say Arizona courts don already start to dey use AI in oda ways. Wen di state Supreme Court issue a ruling, for example, dem get AI system wey dey make dose rulings digestible for pipo.
And Mr Grimm say becos dem use di AI witout di presence of jury, just for judge to decide sentencing, di technology dey allowed.
“We go lean on [AI] on a case-by-case basis, but di technology no dey resistible,” e tok.
But some experts like Derek Leben, wey be business ethics professor for Carnegie Mellon University, dey concerned about di use of AI and di precedent dis case dey set.
While Mr Leben no question dis family intention or actions, e dey worry say not all uses of AI go dey consistent wit victim wishes.
“If we get oda pipo wey dey do dis as we move forward, shey we go always dey accurate on wetin dat pesin, di victim in dis case, go want?” Mr Leben ask.
For Ms Wales, however, dis give her brother di final word.
“We bin approach dis wit ethics and morals becos dis na powerful tool. Just like a hammer fit dey used to break window or rip down wall, e fit also dey used as tool to build house and dat na how we use dis technology,” she took.