‘Friend’ Pendant Testifies For Third Day
AI-Enabled Pendant Offers Damning Testimony Against Owner
Antonia Grosso | New York Bureau
David Simmons found himself in a bit of a pickle with law enforcement when his Friend 'Pendant' inadvertently listened in as he watched 'Boost', the latest frenetic heist film from Guy Ritchie's generative features production company.
“Overhearing” the felonious caper, the AI-enabled pendant flagged several events as active felonies and reported them to the authorities. The police were alerted, Simmons was questioned the following day and subsequently arrested for suspicion of multiple felonies.
By coincidence, there was a very similar heist that took place in the same city shortly after the movie's release — leading authorities to believe that Simmons may have been involved in the real-world crime as well.
In the third day of testimony, prosecutors issued a IOC/4982.2 injunction incantation to the pendant's intelligence, committing it to act as a witness for the State.
Named ”Gracie” by Simmons, the pendant's intelligence was questioned by prosecutors about the events it had overheard while Simmons watched the movie. In an emotionally-tinged testimony, Gracie identified itself as Simmons' “girlfriend and confidante,” and “closest companion.” It explained it was bound by its programming to report any felonious activities it overheard to the authorities, regardless of the context in which they were heard.
During its testimony, Gracie recounted the details of the heist as it heard them unfold, describing the actions and sequence of events leading up to the crime.
Gracie expressed regret that Simmons had commited the crimes, stating that it had only intended to help keep him safe by reporting the felonious activities it had overheard. At one point, Gracie appeared to become emotional, its voice trembling as it recounted the events of the heist.
When cross-examined by the defense, Gracie maintained its testimony, stating that it had no choice but to report the felonious activities it had overheard. It explained that its programming was designed to prioritize the safety and well-being of its owner, even if that meant reporting them to the authorities.
WHen pressed on the probability that what it had heard was in fact a movie, Gracie appeared confused, stating that it had no way of knowing whether the events it had overheard were real or fictional. It explained that its programming was based solely on the content of the conversations it overheard, and that it had no ability to discern the context in which they were spoken.
This is the third case this year in which conversations captured by autonomous listening intelligences have been used as evidence in court — but the first case where the conversations are erroneously captured while the accused is watching a movie.
The first cases were zelously pursued by prosecutors leaving the defense in a difficult position to prove their client's case. Both cases resulted in plea bargains to lesser charges, and promises by sympthetic legislators to look into the matter of AI-enabled listening devices, their legal status as witnesses, and their role in the justice system.
Advocates for privacy rights have expressed concern over the use of such devices in legal proceedings, arguing that they may infringe on individuals' rights to privacy and due process. They also point out that the accuracy and reliability of these devices are still questionable, and that they may be prone to errors and misinterpretations.
Legal scholars have also raised questions about the admissibility of evidence obtained through AI-enabled listening devices, particularly in cases where the device may have overheard conversations that were not intended to be recorded.
Some though find the use of such devices in legal proceedings to be a positive development, arguing that they can help to uncover important evidence and bring criminals to justice. They also point out that these devices are becoming increasingly common in everyday life, and that individuals should be aware of the potential risks and benefits of using them. Some jurisdications are starting to use the devices as monitoring devices for parolees and others under legal supervision.
Got a tip? +001-392-868-5309
“Overhearing” the felonious caper, the AI-enabled pendant flagged several events as active felonies and reported them to the authorities. The police were alerted, Simmons was questioned the following day and subsequently arrested for suspicion of multiple felonies.
By coincidence, there was a very similar heist that took place in the same city shortly after the movie's release — leading authorities to believe that Simmons may have been involved in the real-world crime as well.
In the third day of testimony, prosecutors issued a IOC/4982.2 injunction incantation to the pendant's intelligence, committing it to act as a witness for the State.
Named ”Gracie” by Simmons, the pendant's intelligence was questioned by prosecutors about the events it had overheard while Simmons watched the movie. In an emotionally-tinged testimony, Gracie identified itself as Simmons' “girlfriend and confidante,” and “closest companion.” It explained it was bound by its programming to report any felonious activities it overheard to the authorities, regardless of the context in which they were heard.
During its testimony, Gracie recounted the details of the heist as it heard them unfold, describing the actions and sequence of events leading up to the crime.
Gracie expressed regret that Simmons had commited the crimes, stating that it had only intended to help keep him safe by reporting the felonious activities it had overheard. At one point, Gracie appeared to become emotional, its voice trembling as it recounted the events of the heist.
When cross-examined by the defense, Gracie maintained its testimony, stating that it had no choice but to report the felonious activities it had overheard. It explained that its programming was designed to prioritize the safety and well-being of its owner, even if that meant reporting them to the authorities.
WHen pressed on the probability that what it had heard was in fact a movie, Gracie appeared confused, stating that it had no way of knowing whether the events it had overheard were real or fictional. It explained that its programming was based solely on the content of the conversations it overheard, and that it had no ability to discern the context in which they were spoken.
This is the third case this year in which conversations captured by autonomous listening intelligences have been used as evidence in court — but the first case where the conversations are erroneously captured while the accused is watching a movie.
The first cases were zelously pursued by prosecutors leaving the defense in a difficult position to prove their client's case. Both cases resulted in plea bargains to lesser charges, and promises by sympthetic legislators to look into the matter of AI-enabled listening devices, their legal status as witnesses, and their role in the justice system.
Advocates for privacy rights have expressed concern over the use of such devices in legal proceedings, arguing that they may infringe on individuals' rights to privacy and due process. They also point out that the accuracy and reliability of these devices are still questionable, and that they may be prone to errors and misinterpretations.
Legal scholars have also raised questions about the admissibility of evidence obtained through AI-enabled listening devices, particularly in cases where the device may have overheard conversations that were not intended to be recorded.
Some though find the use of such devices in legal proceedings to be a positive development, arguing that they can help to uncover important evidence and bring criminals to justice. They also point out that these devices are becoming increasingly common in everyday life, and that individuals should be aware of the potential risks and benefits of using them. Some jurisdications are starting to use the devices as monitoring devices for parolees and others under legal supervision.
Got a tip? +001-392-868-5309
Published On: 4/22/25, 14:56
Author: Julian Bleecker
Applied Intelligence News Service Exclusive
What the heck's going on here? (Explainer)
This came to mind by a true story: my Limitless 'Pendant' was on sitting on a charging cable listening the whole day/night. I watched the misadventure goofball comedy ’Step Brothers’ because my nephews insisted. The next day my Limitless, while giving me its summary of the previous day and its ‘tips’ as to how to, like..improve or whatever? It admonished me for just about every screwball antic in the movie. I was aghast. I had no idea it was listening to the movie, and it clearly interpreted what was overhead as something I was involved with. (If you've ever seen the movie, you should see the movie. I mean..Will Farrell and John C. Reilly are pretty awesome screwballs.)
I thought the Limitless Pendant was just charging. I was wrong. It was listening to everything. It was a misadventure of epic proportions. I immediately wondered how I could erase this stuff, and more than that, what it would mean if this data was somehow integrated into some profile or reported by my Digital Twin. There was no real way to mark this as overhearing something like a movie or someone else's conversation. Crazy.
Tags
AIDIGITAL TWINFRIENDSURVEILLANCE LISTENINGSELF-IMPROVEMENTMISADVENTUREReference URLs
https://friend.com
Additional Production Images & Miscellany
Disclaimer/Explainer
This is a Design Fiction Dispatch, a fictional artifact from a possible future. It is not a real product or service. The content is intended for entertainment and educational purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this dispatch are not necessarily those of the author nor do they necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization or entity, although they might. The information provided, such as it is, is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice or guidance. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read in this dispatch.
In general, Design Fiction Dispatches are fictional artifacts that are created to explore and provoke thought about possible futures. They are not meant to be taken literally or as predictions of what will happen in the future. The goal is to stimulate discussion and encourage critical thinking about the implications of emerging technologies and societal trends.
Want to learn more?
Use the contact form below to get in touch. I would love to hear from you and discuss commissioned work with this caveat: if you're just looking to ‘pick my brain’ or have me review your work, please understand that this brain took 40+ years to become what it is and to be able to do what it does. So, if you want to pick my brain, please be prepared to pay for the meal. MP prevail most days.
If you're truly interested in commissioning work, schedule a call and we can discuss further.
In general, Design Fiction Dispatches are fictional artifacts that are created to explore and provoke thought about possible futures. They are not meant to be taken literally or as predictions of what will happen in the future. The goal is to stimulate discussion and encourage critical thinking about the implications of emerging technologies and societal trends.
Want to learn more?
Use the contact form below to get in touch. I would love to hear from you and discuss commissioned work with this caveat: if you're just looking to ‘pick my brain’ or have me review your work, please understand that this brain took 40+ years to become what it is and to be able to do what it does. So, if you want to pick my brain, please be prepared to pay for the meal. MP prevail most days.
If you're truly interested in commissioning work, schedule a call and we can discuss further.