Despite strict procedure and rules, the court is a place for human common sense to also intervene. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... In other w

Despite strict procedure and rules, the court is a place for human common sense to also intervene. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... In other words, you being a mouthpiece for an AI would likely be seen as sufficiently separate enough from "representing yourself" as to be not representing yourself at all. I would imagine, in SCOTUS, were a case argued around allowing folks to "represent themselves" like this, one of the first questions a justice would ask is "Suppose, instead of an AI computer talking through the defendant, an actual practicing lawyer was talking through the defendant through the earpiece. In that case, is the person still actually representing themselves?"