AI Avatar Tries To Argue Case Before a New York Court (apnews.com) 24
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: 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. 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. "The appellant has submitted a video for his argument," said Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels. "Ok. We will hear that video now."
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. "It would have been nice to know that when you made your application. You did not tell me that sir," Manzanet-Daniels said before yelling across the room for the video to be shut off. "I don't appreciate being misled," she said before letting Dewald continue with his argument.
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. In an interview with The Associated Press, Dewald said he applied to the court for permission to play a prerecorded video, then used a product created by a San Francisco tech company to create the avatar. Originally, he tried to generate a digital replica that looked like him, but he was unable to accomplish that before the hearing. "The court was really upset about it," Dewald conceded. "They chewed me up pretty good." [...] As for Dewald's case, it was still pending before the appeals court as of Thursday.
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. "It would have been nice to know that when you made your application. You did not tell me that sir," Manzanet-Daniels said before yelling across the room for the video to be shut off. "I don't appreciate being misled," she said before letting Dewald continue with his argument.
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. In an interview with The Associated Press, Dewald said he applied to the court for permission to play a prerecorded video, then used a product created by a San Francisco tech company to create the avatar. Originally, he tried to generate a digital replica that looked like him, but he was unable to accomplish that before the hearing. "The court was really upset about it," Dewald conceded. "They chewed me up pretty good." [...] As for Dewald's case, it was still pending before the appeals court as of Thursday.
Just appoint an AI judge (Score:2)
problem solved
Now appearing for the Trump Administration (Score:4, Funny)
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice before this Court: Attorney Name- Max-ma-ma-max Headroom! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Speedy Justice Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
AI Lawyer presents case. (.5 Seconds) AI Judge finds you guilty. (.5 Seconds) AI Appeals Court upholds judgement. (.5 seconds) // Sentence: 20 years.
Robot Bailiff: Take him away.
Hyper-Chicken: Now I may be just be a simple country Hyper-Chicken, but I know when we're finger licked.
Re: (Score:2)
Judge AI: You [Zev Bellringer of B3K] have been found guilty of [failing to perform your wifely duties, and humiliating your husband in the temple]. You are therefore sentenced to be transformed into a love slave, and to be given to Seminary 166145 to be used for
Re: (Score:2)
It just goes to show... (Score:3)
Actually (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm looking forward to seeing the excuses (Score:3)
Being a lawyer has two parts. First is being a shyster who can convince a jury or a judge to believe something that isn't true.
The second one is just memorizing a metric fuck ton of case law and how to apply it. And believe it or not it's this second part that's the largest part of being a lawyer and by far the most lucrative and important. The shysters just get all the attention because they make better TV.
AI is perfectly suited to replacing 80% of what lawyers do. And that means laying off 80% of lawyers permanently.
On the other hand I'm not sure I want tens of thousands of people with no jobs and no job prospects and tons of legal weaponry at their disposal flitting about our country and economy.
And what's not forget that because lawyers are so cheap to train and being a lawyer can be very lucrative The universities have been cranking them out like crazy. Your kid might have a hard time getting into medical school even with a 3.9 GPA but there's always a spot for them in law school at least at your local state uni.
But like I said it will be amusing to see the excuse they use when we have solid evidence today computer lawyer is superior to a real one and they still won't let us use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in this case, it does not look like they made using AI illegal, per se. They just didn't like being surprised. Basically the guy appears to have written down his argument, then used an AI avatar to present it. The court made a special accommodation, but were not properly informed what the actual nature of the accommodation was. They probably would have had no problem with just being given a written copy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Meanwhile lawyers spend their days figuring out how to steal my money and yours, has steal our houses and property for the ruling class and how to get a small piece of it for themselves.
So I guess what I'm saying is the two aren't comparable. You're comparing the people who make civilization possible to th
Re: (Score:2)
You know, lawyers also help consumers and workers out. My mom bought a brand new Camaro, something like 10 years ago, and it started developing a problem the dealer could never pinpoint and fix. She eventually had to get a lawyer to sue them with the Lemon law before they would make things right.
My uncle had a work place injury claim after he was involved in an accident. The company wasn't going to pay for his medical bills despite their faulty equipment. He had to sue them to make it right.
So not all lawye
Re: (Score:2)
Being a lawyer has one part, and one part only: Passing the bar.
If the AI hasn't passed the bar, it cannot legally represent someone else in court. If it has, it is a lawyer.
(Representing someone else does not appear to be what was intended here. But the guy's an idiot, nonetheless.)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers make to make it illegal to use AI unless you are yourself a lawyer.
This is just factually wrong. It was even covered on Slashdot in a previous story [slashdot.org] and lawyers using AI generated filings have been heavily sanctioned by the courts.
AI (LLMs) aren't particularly useful to lawyers because there's no such thing as plagiarism in legal filings. Most that practice within a particular area have already written almost anything they need to and can recycle the older filings and arguments. They've been using sophisticated search tools for decades now to help find relevant case law
Re: (Score:2)
That's were techniques like RAG and RIG [medium.com] come into play minimizing hallucinations and other problems.
Re: I'm looking forward to seeing the excuses (Score:2)
Lawyers make to make it illegal to use AI unless you are yourself a lawyer.
You can always represent yourself, with or without AI. This isn't about protecting lawyers, it's protecting the defendant.
The judge has to protect you from yourself. If you want to represent yourself, they have to make sure you're aware what's at stake and somewhat competent or you could later make a case about having an unfair trial. The guy didn't claim to be representing himself and made it appear in his request that he had a lawyer.
The judge will let him do that, after the talk, do you really, really kn
The plaintiff is dogfooding (Score:5, Informative)
He is an AI developer with a startup of AI law avatars and AI law school for unrepresented defendants.
Jerome W. Dewald is a pioneer in AI and programming, with a diverse background spanning computer science, psychology, and entrepreneurship. ...
He founded ProSe Pro, an AI tool aimed at empowering unrepresented litigants and making the legal system more accessible.
ProSe Pro uses AI-powered interview bots, course recommendations, and a community forum to connect unrepresented litigants with legal resources and guidance.
ProSe Pro is also exploring the use of AI and deepfake technology to create an accredited virtual law school, offering JD degrees at a fraction of the cost of traditional law schools.
https://aiadvantage.show/podca... [aiadvantage.show]
Re: (Score:2)
We can't get AI to reliably answer basic facts about arithmetic. How delusional do you need to be to think they can dispense reliable legal advice?
Jerome isn't "dogfooding", he's advertising. The business model here is "get as much attention as possible so you can cash out before you run out of other people's money."
Re: The plaintiff is dogfooding (Score:2)
Perhaps they should have asked the judges if they wanted to be fed what the plaintiff feeds to dogs. The implications are horrific for any form of credibility.
That person is an idiot. They deserve what they get.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the link https://aiadvantage.show/podca... [aiadvantage.show] .
On the point if dogfooding, that seems to be true.
I could not find any reference to what he was in court about. Makes me wonder if the case was legitimate (and if so, why), or if he managed to get some specious sketchy case on the docket so he could test out his AI shtick.
In the interview you linked to, he lays out reasons for having started this company or service, and to be fair, it sounds pretty righteous - it might permit someone to take a [meritor
He who represents himself (Score:2)
Has a fool for a client.
Attributed to many people - Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, etc. Earliest equivalent quote: William de Britaine, 1682.