On Monday night, former CNN blowhard Jim Acosta interviewed a slain victim of the 2018 Parkland, Florida, massacre.
You read that correctly.
Acosta, who now has his own Substack and accompanying YouTube channel, spoke with an artificial intelligence avatar of Joaquin Oliver — one of 17 victims senselessly gunned down by a deranged former classmate at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
Joaquin was only 17 when he died. Monday would have been his 25th birthday, surely a difficult day for his loved ones and a moment to lament his stolen future.
“Remembering Joaquin: AI Brings Voice to gun Victims” was the title of the episode. A rather strange summation from Acosta, who has made himself into a warrior against so-called disinformation.
In reality, it was more of a bizarre AI demonstration than an interview.
Acosta asked the computer-generated stand-in about his own “solution for gun violence.”
“Great question,” said the avatar. “I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support and community engagement. We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections, making sure everyone feels seen and heard. It’s about building a culture of kindness and understanding. What do you think about that?’
Despite the likeness sounding robotic, Acosta acted like he was having a thoughtful human interaction. He went on to ask “Joaquin” about his favorite movies and sports.
“’Star Wars’ is such an epic saga. The adventures, the characters and that iconic music are unforgettable,” the avatar responded, adding that he also likes the Miami Heat and LeBron James.
“Joaquin” ended each answer by tossing an automated-sounding question back to Acosta — bringing to mind the computer in the 1983 Matthew Broderick movie “War Games.”
And yet Acosta continued with the unsettling charade. He noted that we’ve heard politicians’ takes on the shooting, but “now we’re hearing from one of the kids. That’s important.”
It’s also false. And grotesque. Like a dystopian plot come to life.
We were hearing not from a victim but an uncanny-valley likeness uploaded with activist talking points and, according to his father, Manny Oliver, some of Joaquin’s own writings and social media posts.
Acosta was rightly and roundly criticized for “interviewing” an AI avatar.
In response to the backlash, the victim’s father said, “If the problem you have is with the AI, then you have the wrong problem. The real problem is my son was shot.”
No one is arguing that last part. The massacre in Parkland was the result of many systemic failures, and a bloody stain on our history. I understand that the Oliver family’s grief must be so immense that they’ll do anything to keep their son’s legacy alive.
However, it’s not about how Joaquin died, but the decision to resurrect their son as an activist with Acosta aiding and abetting this dangerous delusion. The whole endeavor raises ethical questions and further muddies our already twisted reality.
Are we really hurtling toward transhumanism this quickly? Do the dead have any say in how they are used after they leave this Earth?
Joaquin’s father emphasized that he understood this is indeed AI and that he cannot bring back his son. But, he said, hearing his child’s voice brings comfort to him and his wife.
No one should deny them that private pursuit of comfort.
But he is also hoping his son’s AI becomes an influencer. In 2024, Manny Oliver and his gun-control group “Change the Ref” also used his son’s voice to send a message to members of Congress, urging them to vote for more gun control measures.
“Now Joaquin is gonna start having followers … He’s going to start uploading videos. This is just the beginning,” said Manny, adding that “moving forward, we will have Joaquin on stage in the middle of a debate. And knowledge is solid. His knowledge is unlimited.”
But can a computer really know the thoughts and soul of a human being?
Using AI as a vessel isn’t going to save the world or stop gun violence. From what I’ve seen thus far, it will just add more well-meaning but ultimately nonsubstantive sentiments to this contentious subject.
Let’s not be like Acosta and pretend otherwise.
