State Supreme Court Invents Fake AI Reporters To ‘Explain’ Its Rulings

In a move blending Black Mirror and North Korean state media, the Arizona Supreme Court has invented a pair of AI reporters to deliver short-form press releases dressed up as news reports. Daniel and Victoria — two very much unreal talking heads — will deliver “clear, accessible explanations of case decisions and opinions” according to the Court’s press release, likely prepared by some latter-day John Henry announcing their own impending replacement.

Or maybe they had generative AI write that too.

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.

That’s Victoria explaining that stores need to be reasonably safe. Victoria reports that the case involved a display that arguably created a tripping hazard, and confirms that science fiction was wrong. If we ever need to defeat the robots, we don’t have to ask them to define “love,” we just have to make them explain Palsgraf.

This initiative advances the Supreme Court’s commitment to helping the public understand Arizona’s judiciary and the administration of justice. Since October, the Court has issued news releases alongside case decisions and opinions, summarizing cases and explaining the reasoning behind rulings. The addition of video explanations further enhances public understanding and exemplifies the Court’s innovative approach to communicating with Arizonans.

If the Arizona Supreme Court wants to “pivot to video,” they should at least do it honestly. Hire an actual reporter. Bring in legal analysts who know how to break down judicial decisions for the public. Maybe even hire a real spokesperson who can answer questions. But that’s sort of the problem… courts usually don’t get into the official news spin business because they don’t have the resources. AI gives them the opportunity to get into that space and in one of the worst ways possible.

Because while the videos open up with an admission that they’re AI-generated mouthpieces of the courts, the format can easily mislead the public that this talking bot represents independent analysis as opposed to a court-produced sizzle reel.

Moreover, as official statements summarizing opinions, these AI-generated “news” segments never dig deeper and never challenge the court’s reasoning. It’s a uniquely superficial and controlled way to shape public perception of the judiciary. Judges complain that the public should “read the opinion” and that criticism is unfair because they’re delicate geniuses dealing in nuance, meanwhile this court opens the door to crunching opinions into one-minute capsules.

Tripping hazards are straightfoward cases, but judicial opinions in big cases don’t always say what they actually mean. Strategic phrasing, omissions, and intellectual gymnastics designed to justify a pre-determined outcome while pretending it’s all about neutral legal principles. AI, of course, will struggle to catch this in the best of circumstances. When the AI works for the court, it just makes laundering that subterfuge into “news” even easier.

Courts suffer from a lack of public trust due in part to a lack of accessible and understandable legal news. From that perspective, one can sympathize with the Arizona initiative. But encouraging local media to cover the courts and the inviting area law faculty to speak to the public — to get people smarter about how the law works AS IS — is a lot better than crafting oversimplified and dumbed-down AI slop. Accessibility often comes at the cost of substantive complexity, but if too much of the latter is sacrificed, the rule of law doesn’t survive the trade.

To be fair, Arizona is probably acting in good faith and might not ask Daniel and Victoria to give the TikTok treatment to its most consequential and controversial cases. But this is about opening the door and legitimating court-controlled AI spin as a public service just invites future abuse.

And pretty soon we’re listening to Victoria explain how the Constitution always contemplated deporting citizens who call Elon Musk a dick.

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

The post State Supreme Court Invents Fake AI Reporters To ‘Explain’ Its Rulings appeared first on Above the Law.