Latest news with #April30
Fast Company
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Fast Company
Why AI ‘reanimations' of the dead may not be ethical
Christopher Pelkey was shot and killed in a road range incident in 2021. On May 8, 2025, at the sentencing hearing for his killer, an AI video reconstruction of Pelkey delivered a victim impact statement. The trial judge reported being deeply moved by this performance and issued the maximum sentence for manslaughter. As part of the ceremonies to mark Israel's 77th year of independence on April 30, 2025, officials had planned to host a concert featuring four iconic Israeli singers. All four had died years earlier. The plan was to conjure them using AI-generated sound and video. The dead performers were supposed to sing alongside Yardena Arazi, a famous and still very much alive artist. In the end Arazi pulled out, citing the political atmosphere, and the event didn't happen. In April, the BBC created a deepfake version of the famous mystery writer Agatha Christie to teach a 'maestro course on writing.' Fake Agatha would instruct aspiring murder mystery authors and 'inspire' their 'writing journey.' The use of artificial intelligence to 'reanimate' the dead for a variety of purposes is quickly gaining traction. Over the past few years, we've been studying the moral implications of AI at the Center for Applied Ethics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and we find these AI reanimations to be morally problematic. Before we address the moral challenges the technology raises, it's important to distinguish AI reanimations, or deepfakes, from so-called griefbots. Griefbots are chatbots trained on large swaths of data the dead leave behind—social media posts, texts, emails, videos. These chatbots mimic how the departed used to communicate and are meant to make life easier for surviving relations. The deepfakes we are discussing here have other aims; they are meant to promote legal, political, and educational causes. Moral quandaries The first moral quandary the technology raises has to do with consent: Would the deceased have agreed to do what their likeness is doing? Would the dead Israeli singers have wanted to sing at an Independence ceremony organized by the nation's current government? Would Pelkey, the road-rage victim, be comfortable with the script his family wrote for his avatar to recite? What would Christie think about her AI double teaching that class? The answers to these questions can only be deduced circumstantially, from examining the kinds of things the dead did and the views they expressed when alive. And one could ask if the answers even matter. If those in charge of the estates agree to the reanimations, isn't the question settled? After all, such trustees are the legal representatives of the departed. But putting aside the question of consent, a more fundamental question remains. What do these reanimations do to the legacy and reputation of the dead? Doesn't their reputation depend, to some extent, on the scarcity of appearance, on the fact that the dead can't show up anymore? Dying can have a salutary effect on the reputation of prominent people; it was good for John F. Kennedy, and it was good for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The fifth-century BC Athenian leader Pericles understood this well. In his famous Funeral Oration, delivered at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, he asserts that a noble death can elevate one's reputation and wash away their petty misdeeds. That is because the dead are beyond reach and their mystique grows postmortem. 'Even extreme virtue will scarcely win you a reputation equal to' that of the dead, he insists. Do AI reanimations devalue the currency of the dead by forcing them to keep popping up? Do they cheapen and destabilize their reputation by having them comment on events that happened long after their demise? In addition, these AI representations can be a powerful tool to influence audiences for political or legal purposes. Bringing back a popular dead singer to legitimize a political event and reanimating a dead victim to offer testimony are acts intended to sway an audience's judgment. It's one thing to channel a Churchill or a Roosevelt during a political speech by quoting them or even trying to sound like them. It's another thing to have 'them' speak alongside you. The potential of harnessing nostalgia is supercharged by this technology. Imagine, for example, what the Soviets, who literally worshipped Lenin's dead body, would have done with a deepfake of their old icon. Good intentions You could argue that because these reanimations are uniquely engaging, they can be used for virtuous purposes. Consider a reanimated Martin Luther King Jr. speaking to our currently polarized and divided nation, urging moderation and unity. Wouldn't that be grand? Or what about a reanimated Mordechai Anielewicz, the commander of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, speaking at the trial of a Holocaust denier like David Irving? But do we know what MLK would have thought about our current political divisions? Do we know what Anielewicz would have thought about restrictions on pernicious speech? Does bravely campaigning for civil rights mean we should call upon the digital ghost of King to comment on the impact of populism? Does fearlessly fighting the Nazis mean we should dredge up the AI shadow of an old hero to comment on free speech in the digital age? Even if the political projects these AI avatars served were consistent with the deceased's views, the problem of manipulation—of using the psychological power of deepfakes to appeal to emotions—remains. But what about enlisting AI Agatha Christie to teach a writing class? Deepfakes may indeed have salutary uses in educational settings. The likeness of Christie could make students more enthusiastic about writing. Fake Aristotle could improve the chances that students engage with his austere Nicomachean Ethics. AI Einstein could help those who want to study physics get their heads around general relativity. But producing these fakes comes with a great deal of responsibility. After all, given how engaging they can be, it's possible that the interactions with these representations will be all that students pay attention to, rather than serving as a gateway to exploring the subject further. Living on in the living In a poem written in memory of W.B. Yeats, W.H. Auden tells us that after the poet's death Yeats 'became his admirers.' His memory was 'scattered among a hundred cities,' and his work subject to endless interpretation: 'The words of a dead man are modified in the guts of the living.' The dead live on in the many ways we reinterpret their words and works. Auden did that to Yeats, and we're doing it to Auden right here. That's how people stay in touch with those who are gone. In the end, we believe that using technological prowess to concretely bring them back disrespects them and, perhaps more importantly, is an act of disrespect to ourselves—to our capacity to abstract, think, and imagine.
Telegraph
09-06-2025
- Telegraph
Hainault swordsman ‘smiled after stabbing pedestrian in neck'
An alleged sword attacker smiled after slashing a pedestrian in the neck during a 'brutal string of attacks' that left a 14-year-old boy dead, the Old Bailey has heard. Marcus Arduini Monzo, 37, is on trial accused of murdering schoolboy Daniel Anjorin and attempting to kill four others during a 20-minute rampage in Hainault, north-east London, on April 30 last year. He denies the charges. On Monday, jurors were shown CCTV of the first alleged attack, which showed Mr Monzo's grey Ford Transit mounting the pavement and hitting Donato Iwule, a Co-op security guard on his way to work. The footage shows Mr Iwule screaming as he is struck by the van, before it collides with a house. Mr Monzo is then seen exiting the vehicle and walking after him while brandishing a sword. Giving evidence, Mr Iwule said: 'I thought I was dying.' He told the court that he tried to escape into a nearby garden but was struck on his knee, face and shoulder and knocked to the ground. He said Mr Monzo got out of the van, pulled a sword from a cover 'right in front of my face' and threw the cover aside. Mr Iwule told Tom Little KC, prosecuting: 'I said 'I don't know you'... I said it multiple times. He said 'I don't care – I'm going to kill you'.' He said he tried to defend himself and raised his arms but Mr Monzo swung the sword, catching him on the neck. 'I saw blood coming out of my neck,' he said. 'I pressed my thumb to not bleed out... I shouted 'God is greatest' in Arabic – because I'm Muslim. 'When that happened, he was smiling like it was something that he was happy about.' Mr Iwule said Mr Monzo became distracted and so he jumped over a fence to escape, later shouting at a schoolboy, believed to be Daniel, to go back inside. 'His eyes were black' Shortly afterwards, Nathan Hutchinson, another Co-op employee, arrived at the scene. He told jurors that he saw Mr Monzo emerge from bushes holding a sword with both hands. Mr Hutchinson said: 'He looked a bit mad, like there was nothing there – his eyes were black. He was muttering some words like: 'You are going to die'.' He added that the weapon was held 'upright in a way to strike' and that he fled after seeing how close Mr Monzo was. Under cross-examination, Mr Iwule said he was standing upright when he was struck and could clearly hear Mr Monzo say he was going to kill him. Jurors were also shown CCTV and phone footage of Mr Monzo appearing to stand over Daniel shortly after the fatal attack, holding the schoolboy's backpack in one hand. Footage from a nearby property appeared to show part of Mr Monzo's body as he struck Daniel, but the full encounter was obscured by a house. Another woman could be heard in mobile phone footage saying: 'F---, he just killed that boy,' as Daniel's lifeless body lay on the floor. The scenes prompted a brief suspension of the trial after a juror left the courtroom, visibly affected. Last week, jurors heard that Mr Monzo had skinned and deboned his own cat before carrying out the alleged attacks, and was under the influence of cannabis, which may have led to drug-induced psychosis. However, the prosecution said this does not amount to diminished responsibility. Mitchell Hayes, a witness who was also on his way to work at the Co-op, said he saw the van 'going faster, slowing down, going faster' before the collision. He said he later heard screaming, saw the driver walk around the van and then get back in and reverse away, appearing to hold what looked like a sword. Mr Hayes said he stayed with Mr Iwule, who was holding his neck and bleeding, for 10 to 15 minutes before becoming aware of another incident nearby. He said another colleague, Mr Hutchinson, began shouting that the attacker had a sword and they saw a body on the other side of the road. 'He was running around with it like a maniac,' Mr Hayes said of the man that he believed to be Mr Monzo. Mr Monzo has admitted possessing two swords but denies murder, attempted murder, wounding with intent, aggravated burglary and possession of a bladed article.
The Independent
09-06-2025
- The Independent
Alleged sword attacker ‘smiled' after slashing man in the neck, court hears
An alleged sword attacker smiled after slashing a pedestrian in the neck during a 'brutal string of attacks' that left a 14-year-old boy dead, the Old Bailey has heard. Marcus Arduini Monzo, 37, is on trial accused of murdering schoolboy Daniel Anjorin and attempting to kill four others during a 20-minute rampage in Hainault, north-east London, on April 30 last year. He denies the charges. On Monday, jurors were shown CCTV of the first alleged attack, which showed Monzo's grey Ford Transit mounting the pavement and hitting Donato Iwule, a Co-op security guard on his way to work. Footage captured Mr Iwule screaming in agony as he was struck by the van before it collided with a house. Monzo is then seen exiting the vehicle and walking after him while brandishing a sword. Giving evidence, Mr Iwule said: 'I thought I was dying.' He told the court he tried to escape into a nearby garden but was struck on his knee, face and shoulder and knocked to the ground. He said Monzo got out of the van, pulled a sword from a cover 'right in front of my face' and threw the cover aside. 'I said 'I don't know you'… I said it multiple times,' Mr Iwule told prosecutor Tom Little KC. 'He said 'I don't care – I'm going to kill you'.' Mr Iwule said he tried to defend himself and raised his arms but Monzo swung the sword, catching him on the neck. 'I saw blood coming out of my neck,' he said. 'I pressed my thumb to not bleed out… I shouted ' God is greatest' in Arabic – because I'm Muslim. 'When that happened, he was smiling like it was something that he was happy about.' Mr Iwule said Monzo became distracted and he jumped over a fence to escape, later shouting at a schoolboy, believed to be Daniel, to go back inside. Under cross-examination, Mr Iwule said he was standing upright when he was struck and could clearly hear Monzo say he was going to kill him. Last week jurors heard how Monzo had skinned and deboned his own cat before carrying out the alleged attacks, and was under the influence of cannabis that may have led to drug-induced psychosis. However, the prosecution says this does not amount to diminished responsibility. Mitchell Hayes, a witness who was also on his way to work at the Co-op, said he saw the van 'going faster, slowing down, going faster' before the collision. He said he later heard screaming, saw the driver walk around the van and then get back in and reverse away, appearing to hold what looked like a sword. Mr Hayes said he stayed with Mr Iwule, who was holding his neck and bleeding, for 10 to 15 minutes before becoming aware of another incident nearby. He said another colleague, Nathan Hutchinson, began shouting that the attacker had a sword and they saw a body on the other side of the road. 'He was running around with it like a maniac,' Mr Hayes said of the man he believed to be Monzo. Monzo has admitted possessing two swords but denies murder, attempted murder, wounding with intent, aggravated burglary and possession of a bladed article. The trial continues.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Measles case at St. Louis Aquarium triggers health alert
ST. LOUIS – A confirmed case of measles has been reported in St. Louis, with potential exposure occurring at the St. Louis Aquarium on April 30. An out-of-state resident with a confirmed case of measles visited the St. Louis Aquarium and a nearby restaurant, raising concerns about a potential outbreak. Dr. Alexander Garza of SSM Health emphasized the contagious nature of measles, stating it is far more contagious than COVID-19. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now The St. Louis Department of Public Health confirmed the exposure incident, noting that no new cases have been linked to this event so far. According to the CDC, there have been over 1,000 confirmed cases of measles in the U.S. this year, compared to 285 cases in 2024. Dr. Garza advises everyone to ensure they are vaccinated against measles, recommending those unsure to consult with their doctors about a second dose. Reactions from people near the aquarium varied, reflecting differing levels of concern about the potential exposure. All facts in this report were gathered by journalists employed by KTVI. Artificial intelligence tools were used to reformat from a broadcast script into a news article for our website. This report was edited and fact-checked by KTVI staff before being published. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
‘Survivor 48' recap: Mary's ‘weird-ass motley crew' plots a path against Joe's ‘core four'
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways Previously on Survivor 48, Kyle Fraser and Shauhin Davari were successful in an ongoing coverup of their offshoot alliance with Kamilla Karthigesu. Clocked as untrustworthy by their allies David Kinne and Mary Zheng, Kyle and Shauhin put in the work to convince Joe Hunter and Eva Erickson to betray David, using his paranoid energy against him in an epic blindside. This week, Mary attempts to band together a "weird-ass motley crew" after being alienated from her alliance. Does Mary have the social capital to pull off a blindside or is she giving away the all-powerful swing vote position to someone else? Read on for our recap of Survivor Season 48, Episode 10, titled "My Enemies Are Plottin'," which aired Wednesday, April 30 on CBS. More from GoldDerby The players still competing to become "sole Survivor" at the start of the episode were: Eva Erickson, Joe Hunter, Kamilla Karthigesu, Kyle Fraser, Mary Zheng, Mitch Guerra, Shauhin Davari, and Star Toomey. The members of the jury that will decide the winner are: Cedrek McFadden, Chrissy Sarnowsky, and David Kinne. Photo by CBS - Credit: CBS CBS "Bro, I can't take that snorin' no mo'" — Star Toomey In an attempt to make good with Mary after blindsiding her in the David vote, Eva told Mary that she did what she could to keep the vote off of Mary and promised to let her know in advance if a vote is coming her way. In saying that, Eva also made it clear that she might actually vote Mary in the future as a decoy and confirmed that she will "not be playing the idol" on her behalf. Eva returned to her actual allies (Joe, Shauhin and Kyle) to confess her conversation with Mary and how she told her she should just lay low and be a number for them, underscoring that it would be a smooth sail for them to the final four. At the same time, Mary returned to the others and gathered with Star and Kamilla to build an opposing plan that they all stick together with Mitch against the other four no matter what -- their first target? Joe. Despite her opposition to his snoring at night, Star approached Mitch with the pitch to stick together as four, even if it means going to rocks in a tied vote situation. Mitch referred to it as "the biggest joke in the game" for Star to be the one to come to him with the plan because she voted for him at the last Tribal Council. Joe and Shauhin both had their sights set on bringing Kamilla and Mitch in to their core four to get to the final six. When Kyle and Kamilla put their heads together, Kamilla confessed that the bottom four are talking about going for Joe in a 4-4 tie situation, but Kyle countered that Joe is honest about wanting to keep Kamilla around and told her that while he's not willing to go against another alliance member, he could at least give her a chance at going for Joe as long as no one learns he knew about it. Photo by CBS - Credit: CBS CBS "I need Mitch, Star and Mary as pissed off as they can possibly be" — Kyle Fraser For the Day 18 reward challenge, the final eight had to drag a buoy along a rope through the sand while having their hands and legs tied before landing three rings on a throwing target. The winner would get to escape to a neighboring island for a fried chicken and waffles picnic. Shauhin, Eva and Kyle got the best starts in the sand slithering. The leaders all flopped when trying to loosen their rings from the obstacle, leaving room for those behind them to catch up, but then Kyle held off a late surge from Joe to earn the win for himself. As the winner, Kyle chose to bring Eva, Kamilla and Shauhin as his guests, leaving Mitch feeling disappointed by his omission from the group. In his confessional on the topic, Kyle pointed out that he purposefully left Mitch, Star and Mary out of the reward so that they'd be "as pissed off as they can possibly be" to work with Kamilla against Joe. Also bothered by Kyle's decision was Joe, but he talked himself down from being upset about it and considered that Kyle chose him to "babysit" Mary. Joe also used it as an opportunity to connect to the players he hasn't spent as much quality time with, like Mary. In their conversation, Joe told Mary that the narrative was that she was in David's head manipulating his decisions against the alliance, but Mary quickly recognized Joe's honesty as a jury management tactic, solidifying her desire to get the "motley crew" together against his "core four." On Day 19, the final eight returned to the beach for their next immunity challenge. This time they used a tension rope to balance a wobbling platform where they'd have to stack blocks to spell "immunity." Before the start of the comp, Jeff offered them a bag of rice that could last to the end of the game as long as three of them would volunteer to sit out. When all eight refused to sit out, Jeff Probst was curious why the mentality of players had changed in the last few seasons. Shauhin told him that they just all want to compete. In the challenge, Jeff noted that Joe and Shauhin kept a "slow and steady" pace compared to Kyle who went "full tilt" despite multiple failed attempts. By the end, after one fall of his blocks and many from the others, Joe came back to win and claim safety for himself. Photo by CBS - Credit: CBS CBS "With this group of people, it's not slappin', it's not hittin', it's not workin'" — Mary Zheng With Joe safe from the vote, the "motley crew" needed a new target and Star chose Shauhin. When she tried to bring Mitch in, he warned her that she might need to play her Shot in the Dark, but he was still reluctant to trust Star and Mary enough to make a move with them. Elsewhere, when Mary told Kamilla that they should put their votes on Kyle ("because they won't go to rocks for him"), flags went up for Kamilla and only pushed her to work against Mary instead of with her. Kamilla went straight to Joe (and Mitch) to tell them that in the span of an hour Mary went from wanting Joe out to naming Kyle, hoping that it would move the core four's target away from Star and on to Mary. When Star and Mary realized that Kamilla and Mitch are working with the others they figured that they'd have to write each other's names on parchment. At Tribal Council, Mitch phrased the structure of their tribe as "individuals within small groups" that are trying to figure out how to move forward with each other. Jeff highlighted it as important because it underscores how there is an alliance and then people out of the alliance forced to work against each other out of self-preservation. The group also addressed the topic of "paranoia," heavily suggesting that it's the reason David is sitting on the jury (much to his chagrin) and asserting that they're all choosing to move forward on the basis of "trust." Trusting her gut over all else, Star did not play her Shot in the Dark and let the votes fall where they would: Star, Mary, Star, Mary, Star, Mary, Star, Star. By a split vote of 5-3, Star became the fourth member of the jury. Next time on Survivor... Mary finds "one more trick up [her] sleeve" and Kyle continues to wrestle with the idea of going back on his word against another ally. SIGN UP for Gold Derby's free newsletter with latest predictions Best of GoldDerby Sign up for Gold Derby's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Click here to read the full article.
