3 ms·

So if he's writing the decisions himself and using an AI voice to read them, big deal. It's pretty much a nothingburger, unless the AI voice somehow misread som

by bitwize 11mo ago

So if he's writing the decisions himself and using an AI voice to read them, big deal. It's pretty much a nothingburger, unless the AI voice somehow misread something in a legally relevant way. If he's using AI to generate decision text, that's a more serious issue.

silisili 11mo ago
While not as bad as AI rendering the decision itself obviously, I wouldn't exactly say it's a nothing burger. It feels completely inauthentic and dystopian. I can only imagine the hell of being nervous in a big court case waiting for the decision, and hearing that annoying TikTok lady deliver the bad news.
nerevarthelame 11mo ago
Generative text to speech models can hallucinate and produce words that are not in the original text. It's not always consequential, but a court setting is absolutely the sort of place where those subtle differences could be impactful. Lawyers dealing with gen-AI TTS rulings should compare what was spoken compared to what was in the written order to make sure there aren't any meaningful discrepancies.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- csallen 11mo ago
  People can also make mistakes while reading, and I suspect we do so at just as much if not more frequency as gen AI text-to-speech algos. It's the AI thinking that makes me wary, not AI text-to-speech.
AngryData 11mo ago
Im not sure I agree if it isn't neccessary for a health issue. It depersonalizes the defendent and detaches the judge from the real human consequences of their decisions. It is a whole extra step into gamifying the judicial process which helps facilitate even worse abuses of the justice system than we already deal with.
datadrivenangel 11mo ago
Except this judge is especially harsh, which suggests that he's very biased, and thus being more productive via AI seems like a bad outcome. From TFA: "Burns approved just 2 percent of asylum claims between fiscal 2019 and 2025—compared with a national average of 57.7 percent."
wahnfrieden 11mo ago
Did you read the article? > "The official could not confirm whether Burns employs the AI to draft full written decisions or only to read his written rulings aloud using text‑to‑speech software..." He is using AI to read judgments and has not said either way whether AI also wrote them. Using it to read them raises suspicion of further automation employed. So it is not accurate to claim that the voice is known to be the full extent

by bitwize 11mo ago

silisili 11mo ago

While not as bad as AI rendering the decision itself obviously, I wouldn't exactly say it's a nothing burger. It feels completely inauthentic and dystopian. I can only imagine the hell of being nervous in a big court case waiting for the decision, and hearing that annoying TikTok lady deliver the bad news.

nerevarthelame 11mo ago

Generative text to speech models can hallucinate and produce words that are not in the original text. It's not always consequential, but a court setting is absolutely the sort of place where those subtle differences could be impactful. Lawyers dealing with gen-AI TTS rulings should compare what was spoken compared to what was in the written order to make sure there aren't any meaningful discrepancies.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
csallen 11mo ago
People can also make mistakes while reading, and I suspect we do so at just as much if not more frequency as gen AI text-to-speech algos. It's the AI thinking that makes me wary, not AI text-to-speech.

AngryData 11mo ago

Im not sure I agree if it isn't neccessary for a health issue. It depersonalizes the defendent and detaches the judge from the real human consequences of their decisions. It is a whole extra step into gamifying the judicial process which helps facilitate even worse abuses of the justice system than we already deal with.

datadrivenangel 11mo ago

Except this judge is especially harsh, which suggests that he's very biased, and thus being more productive via AI seems like a bad outcome. From TFA: "Burns approved just 2 percent of asylum claims between fiscal 2019 and 2025—compared with a national average of 57.7 percent."

wahnfrieden 11mo ago

Did you read the article? > "The official could not confirm whether Burns employs the AI to draft full written decisions or only to read his written rulings aloud using text‑to‑speech software..." He is using AI to read judgments and has not said either way whether AI also wrote them. Using it to read them raises suspicion of further automation employed. So it is not accurate to claim that the voice is known to be the full extent