While your Executive Director complains about keyboard warriors and anonymous voices contributing to the destruction of society, and your President is offering platitudes about overcoming obstacles being the key to our success, members of the STRONG Committee are invited to, showing up for, and continue to fight for stenographic reporters in forums that matter.
Apparently, a member of STRONG was invited to speak to what they believed to be a state bar association meeting, but in reality was a cybertech symposium with big AI tech lawyers.
Instead of summarizing, the rundown of the meeting has been posted on social media that we will quote here, beginning after the big tech symposium introductions:
“… it was clearly evident I was about to be fed to the wolves!!! I squared my shoulders and went to battle. Right off the bat, hands started shooting up and, even though I had said we would do Q&A at the end, I thought, ‘I’m not going to let them think I’m scared of them!!’ And I called on them.
“It became quickly evident that there was no need to be scared they were going to burn me at the stake, but a GREAT DEAL of fear for the future of the legal profession [sic].
“Here are just a few of the nuggets I was asked: After discussing the new rules that were being implemented across the country requiring attorneys to be personally responsible/liable for the risks of vendors utilizing AI, to include the very detailed specifics of traceability and authentication, I cited the research that 90% of AI companies would not stay in business due to myriad factors such as insufficient funds and lack of product marketability and sustainability.
“’Q: So we should only use the 10% that stay in business????’
“Yeah, that would work. Are you best friends with Nostradamus? And can I get stock tips from you?’
“After discussing the very proud claims of AI being 80% accurate: ’Q: Some companies clearly will be better at this than others, so what if we only use the 80% accuracy companies?’
“’You understand that that is on their best days, right?’
“’Not every time? That’s the best it ever gets?’
“But let’s just entertain this hypothetical and say it’s always 80%. That’s good enough for you? You’re ok that 20% of your client’s testimony is made up? Wrong? Or just not there? Which 20 words out of 100/40-plus words per page are you okay with just not being there or created out of whole cloth or by robot? Do you have any idea how many words 20% constitutes in a 300-page transcript? And you’re good with that?’
“I was asked how a court reporter would prove their accuracy. BEST ANSWER OF THE DAY!! I said, ‘First, I would sign an affidavit that AI was not used in any way to create this transcript, and then I would get on the stand with my stenographic notes and we would put them on the big screen and I would walk you through every steno outline (you would see hieroglyphics) that would represent every syllable of every word that was spoken, by the correct speaker, in real time as it was said. And those steno notes are as personal as my fingerprints. Each reporter refines their writing to become unique to them. Better than a watermark?’ SHAZAM!!
“I will only give you one more as this is already too long. ‘Q: What if the government comes up with a stamp to certify AI companies?’
“’Yeah, let’s talk about that fantasy world. Yup, if the government can come along and vet all the new companies and their products and find the ones that don’t hallucinate, have catastrophic dumps, data shift, with no biases and inaccuracies due to gender, race, dialect, and the other defects in their product, and put their approval on that software, then I guess it will be up to you if you decide to put your license, your case, and your client on the line for that sticker.’
“All in all, this experience has left me stunned at the lack of comprehension for the catastrophic impacts that are on the line with the implementations that are being proposed by BIG TECH!!!! I have a profound fear for the future of the legal profession.”
Did the Executive Director, the President, or the Board of Directors even KNOW about this symposium? We all doubt it because they disbanded the STRONG Committee and there are no longer safeguards to stay in front of the MOST PROFOUND issue facing our profession in the last 100 years.
The game has changed regarding stenographic reporting, and we have an ED, a President (retired from reporting), and a Board of Directors that don’t even realize that the game has changed!
The STRONG Committee is what machine stenography needs RIGHT NOW! Membership DEMANDS that the STRONG Committee be reconstituted, and we beg those STRONG Committee members to rejoin.
And membership MUST assure that leadership fully funds and supports the STRONG Committee!
WAKE UP, NCRA!
FRANK N. SENSE
P.S. Thank you to all of those that sent this VERY IMPORTANT information. Please keep it coming.