Jerome Diwald sat with two crosses and his hands folded in his bosom in front of an appeals committee from New York State Judges, and ready to discuss the opposite of the court’s lower decision in his conflict with a former employer.
The court allowed Mr. Diwald, who is not a lawyer and represented himself, to accompany his argument with a pre -recorded video.
When the video started playing, he showed a 74 -year -old man from Mr. Duwald wearing a blue and beige shirt standing in front of what seemed to be an unclear virtual background.
After a few seconds of the video, one of the judges, who was confused by the image on the screen, asked Mr. Diwald if the man was his lawyer.
“I was born,” Mr. Diwald answered. “This is not a real person.”
Judge, Judge Sally Manzanit Daniels, stopped from the first judicial department in the Appeals Department, for a moment. It was clear that she was upset with his answer.
“It was good to know that when you submitted your request,” I picked up.
“I cannot be misleading,” she added, before screaming to someone to stop the video.
What Mr. Diwald failed to reveal is that he created digital Avatar using the artificial intelligence program, which is the latest example of artificial intelligence that crawls to the American legal system in possible ways.
the A hearing in which Mr. Diwald presented his presentationOn March 26, it was filmed by the court cameras and was reported earlier Associated Press.
On Friday, Mr. Diwald, the prosecutor in the case, arrived in the case, that he immersed the embarrassment in the session. He said that the judges sent a letter after that shortly, expressing his deep regret and confessing that his actions were “unintentionally misled.”
He said that he resorted to the use of the program after he stumbled on his words in previous legal procedures. It is believed that using artificial intelligence of the presentation, it may relieve the pressure he felt in the courtroom.
He said he intends to present a digital version of himself, but he faced “technical difficulties” in doing this, which led him to create a fake person to register instead.
He said in his message to the judges: “It was not my intention to be deceived, but rather to present my arguments in the most efficient way.” “However, I realize that the appropriate disclosure and transparency should always have precedence.”
Mr. Diwald, a self -described businessman, was a former ruling on a contract dispute with a former employer. Ultimately presented an oral argument at the hearing of the appeal, fatigue, and a repeated interruption to reassemble their ranks and read notes prepared from his mobile phone.
Regardless of an embarrassing, Mr. Diwald can take over some comfort in the fact that actual lawyers have faced a problem using artificial intelligence in court.
In 2023, the New York lawyer faced severe repercussions after that Use Chatgpt to create a legal summary Fake with fake judicial opinions and legal categories. The issue offered defects to rely on artificial intelligence and its frequency during legal trade.
In the same year, Michael Cohen, a former and installed lawyer for President Trump, presented his lawyer Fake legal categories He had got from Google Bard, an artificial intelligence program. Mr. Cohen ultimately appealed to mercy from the federal judge who heads his case, with a focus that he did not know that the obstetric text service could provide wrong information.
Some experts say artificial intelligence and large language models can be useful for people who have legal issues to deal with them, but they cannot bear the costs of lawyers. However, the risk of technology remains.
“They can still hallucinations – produce very convincing information,” said Daniel Shen, Assistant Research Director at the William and Mary Law Center. “This danger must be addressed.”
