A plaintiff tried to use an AI avatar to make his argument before a New York appeals court. To say that it didn’t go well is an understatement.

As discussed in this Associated Press article, 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 plaintiff’s use of an AI avatar in this case didn’t go over well. But Arizona’s Supreme Court last month intentionally began using two AI-generated avatars, similar to the one that Dewald used in New York, to summarize court rulings for the public.

On the court’s website, the avatars — who go by “Daniel” and “Victoria” — say they are there “to share its news.”

I’m somewhat surprised that we haven’t seen someone try to use an AI avatar already. I don’t expect it to be the last time either.

Hat tip to Nick Wittenberg for the heads up on this story!

So, what do you think? Should courts allow at least pro se parties use AI avatars to help them make arguments in court? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Image Copyright © Twentieth Century Fox

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the authors and speakers themselves, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.