An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren’t having it
https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-ai-courts-nyc-5c97cba3f3757d9ab3c2e5840127f765
An AI avatar tried to argue a case before a New York court. The judges weren’t having it
https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-ai-courts-nyc-5c97cba3f3757d9ab3c2e5840127f765
18 Comments
“It took only seconds for the judges on a New York appeals court to realize that the man addressing them from a video screen — a person about to present an argument in a lawsuit — not only had no law degree, but didn’t exist at all.
“It would have been nice to know that when you made your application. You did not tell me that sir,” the judge said before yelling across the room for the video to be shut off.
Dewald later penned an apology to the court, saying he hadn’t intended any harm. 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.”
Judges have made it pretty clear that they don’t recognize AI as equivalent to lawyers. So for this defendant to try and deceive the judges with one was not a smart choice.
It doesn’t seem like many of the articles reporting on this actually link the video. [The segment begins at 19:23. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctv4ZQRZgbA)
The headline implies that the avatar was somehow sentient. It didn’t try to do anything, some guy tried to use one.
If he’d consulted the AI while representing himself I presume that would be allowed, no? How is it different to using Google or looking up law books?
I imagine the lawyers will try to shut it down though, but that makes sense, they want you to have no recourse but to pay exorbitant legal fees.
This could actually allow people without the means to hire an attorney to represent themselves more skillfully than they could do on their own. I feel like this could be a benevolent use case for AI that could be a positive value to society. It may not be ready for full implementation just yet, but when has that ever stopped the oligarchy from doing something? Maybe it’s time for the proletariat to get a chance at benefiting from AI.
Sometimes having an outdated law system that can’t keep up with the times is beneficial I suppose. Still, AI gets better every day and this country is still stuck deciding if corrupt businessmen make good leaders
> Daniel Shin, an adjunct professor and assistant director of research at the Center for Legal and Court Technology at William & Mary Law School, said he wasn’t surprised to learn of Dewald’s introduction of a fake person to argue an appeals case in a New York court.
> “From my perspective, it was inevitable,” he said.
> He said it was unlikely that a lawyer would do such a thing because of tradition and court rules and because they could be disbarred. But he said individuals who appear without a lawyer and request permission to address the court are usually not given instructions about the risks of using a synthetically produced video to present their case.
This seems more like a genuine mistake rather than active malevolence. The guy had no legal advice, so he’s being a spectacular dumbass rather than trying to deceive
Sad thing is they’d prob do a better job than half the public pretenders out there. Unlike them the AI doesn’t rub elbows and golf with the states attorney. Probably not willing to do horse trading either. Attorneys are scum of the earth and I agree wholeheartedly with Shakespeare about their entire profession.
Also: Fuck that judge. They are all power tripping. This country needs a fuckin enema.
Lawyers are one of the obvious jobs that will get replaced by AI. I mean the BAR exam is literally just a memory test, AI’s greatest strength. This is just a taste of what is to come.
Sets a good precedent. Let’s see that expanded upon.
Ah, so it is bad if it’s lawyers but not everyone else.
Interesting.
I’m not rooting for ai itself. I am naively hopeful that commoners like ourselves could use it to improve our lives. I have no illusions as to where the loyalties of the oligarchy that create these machines lie.
It’s going to happen sooner or later. An AI avatar arguing for you with the entire history of previous cases to draw on in seconds. I know what I’d pick.
Imagine the future scenario: an AI has done wrong and is on a life/death trial; his juror “peers” are Twelve Angry AIs…
Not sure anyone is ready for an AI Judge though.
.
This title is misleading. The avatar didn’t try to do anything. A human tried to have an avatar argue their case. Can we please make an effort to stop personifying “agents” which have no “agency”
I’d be all for having AI legal representation. Crazy to think about all the situations where people were nearly jailed except at the last minute their lawyer remembered some long ago case that gives the needed precedent.
If justice is blind in the eyes of the court what does it matter who or what is representing the argument. We all know that this would take down the Status Quo. I will go even further I would data scrape the judges prefences in personality likes dislikes build an AI persona based on that. If JUSTICE IS TRULY BlIND it should have a barring on the case. Courts stop the RIZZ!