Text to speech has been a technology for a very long time. This is, in my opinion, a whole article about nothing, leaning on the AI label to garner views.
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
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.