Arizona Supreme Court taps AI avatars to make the judicial system more publicly accessible

PHOENIX (news agencies) — Arizona’s highest court has created a pair of AI-generated avatars to deliver news of every ruling issued by the justices, marking what is believed to be the first example in the U.S. of a state court system tapping artificial intelligence to build more human-like characters to connect with the public.

A court in Florida uses an animated chatbot to help visitors navigate its website, but the Arizona Supreme Court is charting new territory with the creation of Victoria and Daniel. Made of pixels, the two avatars have a different job in that they serve as the face of news coming from the court just as a spokesperson made of flesh and blood would do — but faster.

The use of AI has touched nearly every profession and discipline, growing exponentially in recent years and showing infinite potential when it comes to things as simple as internet searches or as complex as brain surgery. For officials with the Arizona Supreme Court, their venture into AI is rooted in a desire to promote trust and confidence in the judicial system.

There was a protest outside the state Capitol last April and calls for two justices to be booted after the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a Civil War-era law that banned nearly all abortions, except when a woman’s life is in jeopardy, could be enforced. Emotions flared on both sides of the issue.

When Chief Justice Ann Timmer took over the court last summer, she made public trust a key pillar of her platform. She had already been thinking about ways to reach out to the public using digital media for a few years, and the abortion ruling, among other rulings, helped her to solidify the idea that the court needs to be part of the narrative as people learn about opinions and what they mean.

“We serve the public better by saying, OK, we’ve issued this decision,” she said. “Now, let us help you understand what it is.”

Timmer told media earlier this year that if the court had to do the abortion ruling over again, it would have approached the dissemination of information differently. In a Wednesday interview, she said that a news release and avatar video could have helped the public better understand the legal underpinnings of the lengthy decision — possibly including what it didn’t do, which she said some misunderstood.

“We got a lot of backlash for it and probably deservedly so, in terms of how can we complain that people don’t understand what we did when we didn’t really do enough to give a simplified version,” she said in the January interview, explaining that people want to know the basis for the court’s decisions and what they can do, such as lobbying state lawmakers for whatever changes in law would support their positions.