Staff Reports
A recent spectacle in a New York State courtroom has reignited concerns about the encroachment of artificial intelligence into spheres that have long relied on human judgment and expertise. Jerome Dewald, a 74-year-old entrepreneur representing himself in an employment dispute, attempted to present his arguments via a slickly produced video featuring an AI-generated avatar—a digital stand-in for a real attorney. The gambit was swiftly and firmly shut down by the presiding judges, who were unimpressed by what they saw as a stunt that undermined the dignity and integrity of the legal process.
The courtroom drama unfolded as Dewald’s AI avatar, a polished and much younger-looking digital creation, began to address the five-judge panel. Within seconds, Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels interrupted, demanding clarification about the speaker’s identity. Upon learning that the “lawyer” was nothing but a computer-generated figure, the judge expressed her frustration at being misled and ordered the video to be stopped immediately. The incident highlighted the clear expectation that legal arguments must be made by real people, not by avatars or lines of code.
This episode is more than just a humorous footnote in the ongoing saga of AI’s march into every corner of society. It underscores a fundamental truth: the American legal system is built on human interaction, accountability, and the ability to read a room—qualities that no algorithm or avatar can replicate. While AI can process vast amounts of information and perhaps even draft legal documents, it cannot replace the uniquely human elements of advocacy, moral reasoning, and empathy that are essential in a courtroom. The judge’s reaction was a necessary reminder that some boundaries are worth defending.
Some argue that AI could democratize legal access or streamline court procedures. But conservatives recognize the dangers of surrendering core civic institutions to technology that is neither accountable nor capable of genuine understanding. If we allow AI avatars to argue in court, what’s next? Will we let machines decide guilt or innocence, or replace juries with algorithms? The left’s fascination with “progress” often ignores the real-world consequences of eroding the human foundations of justice and due process.
Ultimately, this incident serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of technology in matters of law and governance. The legal system is not a playground for tech entrepreneurs to beta-test their latest gadgets; it is a pillar of our republic that demands the wisdom, discernment, and conscience of living, breathing Americans. While AI may have its place in research or clerical tasks, the courtroom, like so many other vital institutions, must remain firmly in human hands.
