A man who used an AI avatar in court because he thought it would present an argument well says he got chewed out by a panel of judges

Q: How long will it take to read this news story?

The story "A man who used an AI avatar in court because he thought it would present an argument well says he got chewed out by a panel of judges" has 740 words across 4 sentences, which will take approximately 4 - 7 minutes for the average person to read.

Q: Which news outlet covered this story?

The story "A man who used an AI avatar in court because he thought it would present an argument well says he got chewed out by a panel of judges" was covered 13 hours ago by Fortune, a news publisher based in United States.

Q: How trustworthy is 'Fortune' news outlet?

Fortune is a fully independent (privately-owned) news outlet established in 1929 that covers mostly economy and business news. The outlet is headquartered in United States and publishes an average of 35 news stories per day. It's most recent story was published 16 hours ago.

Q: What do people currently think of this news story?

The sentiment for this story is currently Neutral, indicating that people are not responding positively or negatively to this news.

Q: How do I report this news for inaccuracy?

You can report an inaccurate news publication to us via our contact page. Please also include the news #ID number and the URL to this story.<ul><li>News ID: #27594159</li><li>URL: https://chronographically.beamstart.com/news/a-man-who-used-an-17438126371934</li></ul>

Fortune Logo Fortune 13h ago

Quick Summary:

Jerome Dewald said he used a product created by a San Francisco tech company to create the avatar.

Originally, he tried to generate a digital replica that looked like him, but he was unable to accomplish that before the hearing.“The court was really upset about it,” Dewald conceded.“They chewed me up pretty good.

In June 2023, two attorneys and a law firm were each fined $5,000 by a federal judge in New York after they used an AI tool to do legal research, and as a result wound up citing fictitious legal cases made up by the chatbot.