Yes, we may ask the question whether or not speculative uses of AI in other manners have negative implications, and these should be asked, but that isn't the case here.
It is very much like asking the question if cars, upon inve tipn, started driving into random fields with no restraint, off-roading as if any car owner woulddo this, upon the sight of seeing a new motor carriage driving down a street. Important questions to ask of emergent technology, sure, but right now that motor carriage is on the road, let it be.
> "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
With all the hubbub these days of those same decision-makers writing "warrants", I consciously try to reframe them as "memos." (Ex: "I have a memo for your arrest.")
Sure, it may not be a term of art for executive-branch bureaucrats... but it's way less misleading for the public that associates "warrant" with a much weightier process.
It also underscores the absurd recklessness of ICE flunkies ramming cars and pointing guns into people's faces while hunting for what are often civil infractions. Not felonies, not misdemeanors, but the equivalent of parking tickets.
Normally I'm relatively anti-generative-AI, but I don't see a big problem with this one. TTS has been used for a long time, just less convincingly so, often in work situations. Many people with disabilities that affect their verbal ability do it so they can communicate in a way that feels less impersonal than in written form - if everyone else using TTS normalises this sort of thing more than it'll be a boost for those users.
My only concern here is that TTS systems based on generative tech have been known to hallucinate slight changes to the text they are reading. In legal contexts small changes in wording can have significant impact, so I hope he checks the output in detail, or has someone else do so, after it is produced before giving it to anyone else…
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
bitwize•2mo ago
silisili•2mo ago
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•2mo ago
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.
csallen•2mo ago
It's the AI thinking that makes me wary, not AI text-to-speech.
AngryData•2mo ago
datadrivenangel•2mo ago
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•2mo ago
> "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