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.