News: 0176927185

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

AI Avatar Tries To Argue Case Before a New York Court (apnews.com)

(Friday April 04, 2025 @05:40PM (BeauHD) from the nice-try dept.)


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 -- [1]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.



[1] https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-ai-courts-nyc-5c97cba3f3757d9ab3c2e5840127f765



Just appoint an AI judge (Score:2)

by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 )

problem solved

Now appearing for the Trump Administration (Score:3)

by david.emery ( 127135 )

MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice before this Court: Attorney Name- Max-ma-ma-max Headroom! [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom

Speedy Justice Indeed (Score:3)

by A10Mechanic ( 1056868 )

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.

Re: (Score:2)

by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 )

> 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)

by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 )

Defense AI : My client [ Zev Bellringer of B3K ] is innocent of the charge of [ failing to perform her wifely duties ] and throws herself upon the mercy of this court, secure in the knowledge that His Shadow's wisdom will prevail upon these proceedings

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

It just goes to show... (Score:3)

by Roger W Moore ( 538166 )

...that articifical intelligence is not a solution for natural stupidity.

Actually (Score:2)

by The MAZZTer ( 911996 )

This person's point of view is fairly reasonable, he just didn't realize the judge would be so annoyed by his use of AI and didn't think he needed to disclose it or explain it ahead of time. Considering AI is such a hot button topic perhaps he should have anticipated such a reaction, but it's not an unreasonable mistake to make.

I'm looking forward to seeing the excuses (Score:2)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

Lawyers make to make it illegal to use AI unless you are yourself a lawyer.

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 perfectl

Re: (Score:2)

by tragedy ( 27079 )

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)

by Rinnon ( 1474161 )

Just a curious argument by analogy: How do you feel about laying off 80% of academics (Professors etc.) and letting AI handle it?

Re: (Score:2)

by taustin ( 171655 )

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.)

The plaintiff is dogfooding (Score:4, Informative)

by test321 ( 8891681 )

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.

[1]https://aiadvantage.show/podca... [aiadvantage.show]

[1] https://aiadvantage.show/podcast/episode/8/ais002-049-jerome-w-dewald

QOTD:
The only easy way to tell a hamster from a gerbil is that the
gerbil has more dark meat.