When the Arizona Supreme Court delivered its ruling in a couple of fire cases and DUI this month, the announcement was not delivered by a judge or spokesman, but by two Avatars of AI that are practically indistinguishable from real persons.
Daniel and Victoria are the newest computer generated by the Supreme Court of Arizona as part of an effort to innovate how justice communicates to the public.
“I think it is an efficient way for us to get news,” said Communications Director Alberto RodrÃguez. “It really is an opportunity for us to meet the public where they are consuming their means.”
RodrÃguez is the man behind the machine who helped design the voice and appearance of his virtual co -workers. He says that AI technology has allowed your team to reduce production time for a press release up to six hours to a few minutes.
Although the process has become more efficient, Rodriguez is not worried about becoming obsolete, noting that each load still requires a human touch.
“As for taking the work of a public information officer, I don’t think it’s a problem because it still requires labor,” he said. “We still have to work with the bank to make sure to obtain precise information.”
The president of the Supreme Court of Arizona, Ann Timmer, says that every word that the public listens to the avatars was written by the judges themselves. She expects additional attention to help improve public trust in court.
“For years, we assume that” of course he trusts the courts, of course they trust the judges. “We are doing our best and these are working people,” he said. “But if people don’t believe that, it doesn’t matter.”
Although Daniel and Victoria could become the most frequent examples of AI in the legal system, Timmer points out that the profession of the law is already using AI every day to help with legal investigation, document reviews and data analysis.
Even so, the use of AI in the legal system is not exempt from controversy. A plaintiff in New York tried to use an AI lawyer to discuss his case before the appeal panel closed it. Throughout the country in California, the State Bar Association faced strong criticism of the legal community after revealing that some questions about the February state examination were written using AI.
As the use of AI in the law continues to grow, so do concerns about the cases of hallucinations of AI and appointments of cases that never existed appearing in legal presentations.
Timmer argues that while these concerns are valid, Arizona’s Supreme Court knows where to draw the line.
“This AI, at least we are using, is not generative,” said Timmer. If the public is concerned “that we use AI to start replacing to judge, I don’t think that happens,” he said.
