Arizona Supreme Court Adopts AI Avatars for Public Outreach
PHOENIX (AP) — In a move believed to be unprecedented in the U.S., the Arizona Supreme Court has launched a pair of AI-generated avatars to deliver news of its rulings. The avatars, named Victoria and Daniel, are designed to serve as the face of the court’s announcements, offering a faster and more accessible way for the public to understand judicial decisions.
While other courts have experimented with AI, such as Florida’s animated chatbot for website navigation, Arizona’s initiative breaks new ground. The goal, according to court officials, is to foster greater trust and confidence in the judicial system.
The court’s decision to use AI in this manner was partly driven by a desire to improve public understanding following a controversial ruling on abortion rights. After the court ruled that a Civil War-era law banning nearly all abortions could be enforced, public protests and debates highlighted the need for the court to more effectively communicate its decisions.
Chief Justice Ann Timmer, who made public trust a priority upon taking office, noted the court’s need to actively participate in public education. She said that the court, in retrospect, could have disseminated information about the abortion ruling more effectively. A news release and avatar video could have helped people better understand the legal basis of the decision, which she felt was often misunderstood.
“We serve the public better by saying, OK, we’ve issued this decision,” Timmer explained. “Now, let us help you understand what it is.”
The avatars, created using a program called Creatify, will accompany every ruling issued by the high court. According to court spokesperson Alberto Rodriguez, the AI-generated avatars offer an efficient way to produce videos. A video that might take hours to produce through traditional means can be ready in about 30 minutes using this method. The court may introduce more AI-generated reporters in the future, Rodriguez said.
Daniel and Victoria’s names and appearances were chosen to represent a wide range of people. Importantly, the court makes it clear that these are AI-generated characters, and they are not meant to be perceived as real people. The court is also exploring different emotional deliveries, cadences, and Spanish translations for the avatars, Rodriguez said.
Legal experts have offered their perspectives on this innovation.
Mason Kortz, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, described the avatars as “quite realistic,” though voices might be a giveaway. He also suggested a more prominent presence for the disclaimer indicating their AI origins.
“You want to make it as hard as possible for someone to advertently or inadvertently remove the disclaimer,” he said.
Asheley Landrum, an associate professor at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, felt the avatars seemed robotic. She suggested that a format that mimics more natural dialogue might engage audiences better while also providing transparency.
