Juliana Kim

Thanks for having us.

Thanks for having us.

Thanks for having us.

Well, American courts are really structured around due process. And if the prosecution puts together a case, for example, using AI, and the defense wants to go back and duplicate what the prosecution did to test the results to ensure that due process was followed on the part of the prosecutor, there's really no way to test that. And so courts are highly suspect of it.

Well, American courts are really structured around due process. And if the prosecution puts together a case, for example, using AI, and the defense wants to go back and duplicate what the prosecution did to test the results to ensure that due process was followed on the part of the prosecutor, there's really no way to test that. And so courts are highly suspect of it.

Well, American courts are really structured around due process. And if the prosecution puts together a case, for example, using AI, and the defense wants to go back and duplicate what the prosecution did to test the results to ensure that due process was followed on the part of the prosecutor, there's really no way to test that. And so courts are highly suspect of it.

I mean, you're right there at the boundary of law and ethics, but I think the evidence rules altogether, if you look at them comprehensively, they're really designed to make sure that anything that comes into court is truthful, is just, and, for example, relevant to the actual case, and that it's fair.

I mean, you're right there at the boundary of law and ethics, but I think the evidence rules altogether, if you look at them comprehensively, they're really designed to make sure that anything that comes into court is truthful, is just, and, for example, relevant to the actual case, and that it's fair.

I mean, you're right there at the boundary of law and ethics, but I think the evidence rules altogether, if you look at them comprehensively, they're really designed to make sure that anything that comes into court is truthful, is just, and, for example, relevant to the actual case, and that it's fair.

So if we can utilize AI to make it more just, credible, truthful, and fair, that's a good thing. Like in the case where someone has a disability that does not allow themselves, they can't communicate for themselves, but they have more control over what the AI avatar is actually saying and their expression, but they couldn't do that same level of communication.

So if we can utilize AI to make it more just, credible, truthful, and fair, that's a good thing. Like in the case where someone has a disability that does not allow themselves, they can't communicate for themselves, but they have more control over what the AI avatar is actually saying and their expression, but they couldn't do that same level of communication.

So if we can utilize AI to make it more just, credible, truthful, and fair, that's a good thing. Like in the case where someone has a disability that does not allow themselves, they can't communicate for themselves, but they have more control over what the AI avatar is actually saying and their expression, but they couldn't do that same level of communication.

I think that has huge potential in courts. And from the victim statement point of view, if we want to be fair to victims and people who might be eligible for parole, then maybe a video attendance at those hearings is more fair. Because it's difficult for the victim to return every so many years and retell the same story and be re-traumatized in the same way.

I think that has huge potential in courts. And from the victim statement point of view, if we want to be fair to victims and people who might be eligible for parole, then maybe a video attendance at those hearings is more fair. Because it's difficult for the victim to return every so many years and retell the same story and be re-traumatized in the same way.

I think that has huge potential in courts. And from the victim statement point of view, if we want to be fair to victims and people who might be eligible for parole, then maybe a video attendance at those hearings is more fair. Because it's difficult for the victim to return every so many years and retell the same story and be re-traumatized in the same way.

And so if the AI tool can help a victim communicate themselves, express what happened truthfully, then I think there's great use there. Where it's used to distort those things, then it's not a good thing.

And so if the AI tool can help a victim communicate themselves, express what happened truthfully, then I think there's great use there. Where it's used to distort those things, then it's not a good thing.

And so if the AI tool can help a victim communicate themselves, express what happened truthfully, then I think there's great use there. Where it's used to distort those things, then it's not a good thing.

just from a humanization point of view, who owns my digital persona?

just from a humanization point of view, who owns my digital persona?