My initial thought about this is that it'll probably be interpreted as a person arguing on one's own behalf rather than having representation from counsel or an attorney ("pro se legal representation") while using a computer, since one party wasn't represented by an attorney. The fact that the computer can generate a video or text probably isn't very relevant, although that probably wasn't happening in the past.
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
125 points (97.7% liked)
News
28424 readers
5231 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So we won’t let it argue a case in court, but it can pull the trigger and take a human life, I see no problems here
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.
This isn't about LLM arguing in court but an AI simply just doing the talking.
Honestly this seems like a reasonable usage for an AI.
It can also set economic policy.
It's how Fat Ass and his merry band of assholes established the tariff rates.
One of those things as much more profitable than the other
So he wasn't using AI to make the argument, just to speak his own words, because he mumbles.
While he should have identified this properly, this is the least offensive use of AI generated video I can imagine.
Did you even watch the video. The judge specifically calls him out for lying about a speech issue cause he's had several conversations upto that point without issue, and she's not mad about using a AI video but mad that he's trying to promote some scam AI grift business of his by using her courtroom as free publicity
No, just read the article. I don't like to watch videos for informative that can be written down.
Work the extra information, that does make it worse.
What's really funny is its what AI should be used for.
Yeah, I unfortunately get why the court had to stop it because they were blindsided by it and this guy didn't think through all the potential problems with this (the big one that occurs to me now is what happens if the AI video says something and the client claims it's an inaccurate representation of their wishes, how's a court supposed to figure out if the AI is messing up or if the client is lying, but there's probably a dozen more someone who reads statutes and opinions all day could think of), but this seems like an innocent mistake from a pro se litigant who was trying to come up with a reasonable accomodation for their disability and just didn't do it correctly, so I hope this doesn't prejudice his case at all.
In this specific case, I believe he fed it the words. AI generated video, and text to speech, sort of thing.
But I could absolutely see it happening as you describe.
The article reads like the guy gave the AI avatar a script to read rather than having the AI avatar generate its own argument. I doubt the plaintiff would have referred to it as prerecorded or readily admit it was an ai avatar if he intended for this thing to argue on his behalf rather than just speak on his behalf.
I really dont see a problem with this.
Yeah, if the situation is as the article implies then there is absolutely no issue, but if I was running a court I would want to put a pause on things and review source code or get sworn testimony from someone who built it first to be on the absolute safe side. Like, if something did go wrong it would be kind of hard to un-hear that and not allow it to influence the ultimate outcome of things.