Importance Score: 52 / 100 🔵
AI Avatar Debuts in Court, Judges Unimpressed
The potential applications of artificial intelligence are vast, yet one intriguing area is the notoriously intricate legal system. Imagine a scenario where an AI could assist with legal representation, especially for individuals navigating court proceedings without a lawyer. Jerome Dewald recently tested this concept in the New York State Supreme Court, employing an AI avatar to present his case. However, the presiding judges were not receptive to this novel technological approach.
AI Stand-In Rejected in Employment Dispute
Representing himself in a labor dispute, as reported by APNews, Dewald believed an AI avatar could articulate his opening statement more effectively due to his own speech impediments. Initially, he sought to create a personalized digital likeness using technology from a San Francisco firm. Time constraints led him to opt for a generic avatar instead.
Unveiling the Digital Representative
The AI representative appeared on a courtroom video display as a “smiling, youthful-looking man with a sculpted hairdo, button-down shirt and sweater.” Regrettably for Dewald, the digital deception was exposed almost immediately upon the video’s commencement.
Judicial Interruption and Displeasure
As the AI counsel began Dewald’s argument with the customary phrase, “may it please the court, I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished judges,” Judge Manzanet-Daniels promptly intervened.
“Okay, hold on, is that counsel for the case?” she questioned, demanding the video be stopped. “I generated that. It’s not a real person,” Dewald admitted, incurring the judge’s evident irritation.
“It would have been nice to know that when you made your application. You did not tell me that, sir… I don’t appreciate being misled.”
“Chewed Me Up Pretty Good”
“They reprimanded me quite harshly,” Dewald recounted in a subsequent AP News interview. “The court was genuinely displeased about it.”
Apology and Context
Dewald later submitted a formal apology to the court, citing his verbal stumbles and assuring them there was no malicious intent. He clarified that while he had sought permission to present a pre-recorded video, he believed this implicitly covered the use of an AI avatar for argument delivery, a presumption the court clearly rejected.
Broader AI Legal Landscape
This incident emerges within a growing context of AI in legal services. DoNotPay, a legal tech startup, provides an AI legal assistant intended to aid defendants in court procedures. However, the company recently faced scrutiny from the FTC regarding the substantiation of its effectiveness claims through rigorous testing.
AI Avatars Beyond the Courtroom
Furthermore, the use of AI avatars as substitutes for individuals is not unprecedented. News outlet Channel 1 presented a compelling demonstration last year showcasing AI-driven news presenters in a proof-of-concept video.
Pioneering but Premature?
Despite the legal setback, this event may mark the first instance of an AI avatar attempting to present arguments in a US court. Although the AI representative‘s presentation was brief, it remains a notable first step. Considering the often exorbitant costs associated with legal battles, AI representation could potentially offer a viable alternative for those lacking legal resources or the financial means to hire counsel.
Future of AI and Legal Precedent
Nonetheless, this particular attempt did not meet judicial approval. While sophisticated tools employing AI summarization, such as ChatGPT, are likely already prevalent within the legal field for efficiently processing complex legal documents, it appears that widespread adoption of AI legal representation, and the establishment of associated legal precedents, still lies in the future.