AI Avatar Disrupts New York Supreme Court: Legal System Grapples with Tech Boundaries
Staff Editor AI Avatar Makes Unexpected Appearance in New York Supreme Court
In an unprecedented move, a 74-year-old entrepreneur utilized an AI-generated video avatar to address a judge during a recent court appearance at the New York State Supreme Court. Jerome Dewald, embroiled in an employment dispute with MassMutual Metro, surprised the courtroom by presenting a significantly younger male avatar as his representative.
The unconventional approach was quickly halted by Associate Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, who expressed visible confusion and frustration over the unexpected use of artificial intelligence in her courtroom. Dewald subsequently admitted to generating the avatar, clarifying that it was not a real person.
Justice Manzanet-Daniels criticized Dewald for failing to inform the court about his intention to use AI technology beforehand. The incident has reignited discussions about the appropriate use of artificial intelligence in legal settings, following previous controversies involving lawyers using AI-generated content.
Dewald cited a medical condition resulting from throat cancer as the reason for employing the AI avatar, claiming it affected his ability to speak. However, the judge noted his apparent capacity to converse with court staff, casting doubt on this explanation.
The entrepreneur’s actions have raised questions about potential business motivations. Dewald is the founder of Pro Se Pro, a startup aimed at assisting litigants in self-representation through video avatars. The judge accused him of attempting to use the courtroom as a platform to promote his business venture.
Technical challenges also played a role in the incident. Dewald initially planned to use a service called Tavus to create a personalized AI avatar but resorted to a stock avatar due to time constraints. He acknowledged the potential negative impact of AI use in court, particularly given concerns about AI inaccuracies.
This incident highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the role of AI in legal proceedings. Similar issues have arisen with law firms using AI tools for document preparation, leading to broader concerns about AI reliability in the legal sector.
As courts and legal professionals grapple with the rapid advancement of AI technology, incidents like this underscore the need for clear guidelines and protocols regarding the use of artificial intelligence in courtroom settings.
