2w ago

An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it

apnews.com An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it

A man appearing before a New York court got a scolding from a judge after he tried to use an avatar generated by artificial intelligence to argue his case.

The latest bizarre chapter in the awkward arrival of artificial intelligence in the legal world unfolded March 26 under the stained-glass dome of New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department, where a panel of judges was set to hear from Jerome Dewald, a plaintiff in an employment dispute.

On the video screen appeared a smiling, youthful-looking man with a sculpted hairdo, button-down shirt and sweater.

“May it please the court,” the man began. “I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished justices.”

“Ok, hold on,” Manzanet-Daniels said. “Is that counsel for the case?”

“I generated that. That’s not a real person,” Dewald answered.

It was, in fact, an avatar generated by artificial intelligence. The judge was not pleased.

Artificial Intelligence @lemmy.sdf.org

An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it.

apnews.com /article/artificial-intelligence-ai-courts-nyc-5c97cba3f3757d9ab3c2e5840127f765

6 1

Technology @lemmy.world

An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it.

apnews.com /article/artificial-intelligence-ai-courts-nyc-5c97cba3f3757d9ab3c2e5840127f765

319 38

Technology @lemmy.zip

An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren't having it.

apnews.com /article/artificial-intelligence-ai-courts-nyc-5c97cba3f3757d9ab3c2e5840127f765

4 0

15 comments

So he wasn't using AI to make the argument, just to speak his own words, because he mumbles.
While he should have identified this properly, this is the least offensive use of AI generated video I can imagine.
- Yeah, I unfortunately get why the court had to stop it because they were blindsided by it and this guy didn't think through all the potential problems with this (the big one that occurs to me now is what happens if the AI video says something and the client claims it's an inaccurate representation of their wishes, how's a court supposed to figure out if the AI is messing up or if the client is lying, but there's probably a dozen more someone who reads statutes and opinions all day could think of), but this seems like an innocent mistake from a pro se litigant who was trying to come up with a reasonable accomodation for their disability and just didn't do it correctly, so I hope this doesn't prejudice his case at all.
  
  The article reads like the guy gave the AI avatar a script to read rather than having the AI avatar generate its own argument. I doubt the plaintiff would have referred to it as prerecorded or readily admit it was an ai avatar if he intended for this thing to argue on his behalf rather than just speak on his behalf.
  I really dont see a problem with this.
  
  In this specific case, I believe he fed it the words. AI generated video, and text to speech, sort of thing.
  But I could absolutely see it happening as you describe.
- What's really funny is its what AI should be used for.
- Did you even watch the video. The judge specifically calls him out for lying about a speech issue cause he's had several conversations upto that point without issue, and she's not mad about using a AI video but mad that he's trying to promote some scam AI grift business of his by using her courtroom as free publicity
  
  No, just read the article. I don't like to watch videos for informative that can be written down.
  Work the extra information, that does make it worse.

So we won’t let it argue a case in court, but it can pull the trigger and take a human life, I see no problems here
- It can also set economic policy.
  It's how Fat Ass and his merry band of assholes established the tariff rates.
- One of those things as much more profitable than the other
- He didn’t have a lawyer representing him in the lawsuit, so he had to present his legal arguments himself. And he felt the avatar would be able to deliver the presentation without his own usual mumbling, stumbling and tripping over words.
  This isn't about LLM arguing in court but an AI simply just doing the talking.
  
  Honestly this seems like a reasonable usage for an AI.

My initial thought about this is that it'll probably be interpreted as a person arguing on one's own behalf rather than having representation from counsel or an attorney ("pro se legal representation") while using a computer, since one party wasn't represented by an attorney. The fact that the computer can generate a video or text probably isn't very relevant, although that probably wasn't happening in the past.

https://youtu.be/Ctv4ZQRZgbA?t=1162 This is the original live stream

15 comments