The Battle Between Humans and AI in Court Reporting

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inCourt ReportingTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The realm of court reporting has seen significant technological advancements in the last few decades, with automation creeping into nearly every field. One area where this shift is particularly noticeable is in the transcription of courtroom proceedings. With the advent of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology, many have speculated that AI might soon replace human court reporters, making traditional methods obsolete. However, as promising as ASR might seem, it is clear that human court reporters still possess an undeniable advantage when it comes to accuracy, comprehension, and adaptability. This tug of war between human expertise and AI promises to continue, with significant implications for the future of legal documentation and the justice system as a whole.

The Rise of Automatic Speech Recognition Technology

ASR technology, which converts spoken words into written text, has been in development for decades. In the early stages, it was mostly used for dictation or simple transcription tasks, like converting voice memos to text. Today, AI systems like Google’s Speech-to-Text, Amazon Transcribe, and Otter.ai have made impressive strides, claiming to provide real-time transcription that can be used in a variety of fields, including court reporting.

These systems have promised to revolutionize how legal proceedings are documented, reducing both cost and time. For courts, ASR could potentially eliminate the need for human court reporters or stenographers, while also offering a faster turnaround for transcriptions. ASR technology relies on deep learning algorithms and vast datasets to train its models, with the potential to refine its accuracy over time. In theory, AI should be able to catch up to and surpass human court reporters as the technology evolves.

However, the reality of this technological transition is far more complex. While ASR offers impressive speed, it has yet to match human accuracy, especially in the nuanced, high-stakes environment of a courtroom. The idea that ASR could replace humans entirely is still distant, with accuracy rates currently hovering around 76%. This gap in precision is a major hurdle in its full integration into court reporting, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in legal proceedings.

The Challenges of ASR in Court Reporting

Despite its technological advances, ASR still faces significant challenges in accurately transcribing courtroom proceedings. One of the most significant issues is its relatively low accuracy rate. ASR can often struggle with distinguishing between speakers, especially in situations where there is a lot of background noise or multiple voices talking over each other. In a courtroom, where different people speak in rapid succession and occasionally over one another, this becomes a serious problem. This limitation often results in transcripts that are incomplete or riddled with errors, undermining their utility in legal contexts.

ASR systems also struggle with the nuances of language. In legal proceedings, there is a particular lexicon of technical terms, legal jargon, and specialized vocabulary that AI models have trouble recognizing and transcribing accurately. In a field where precise wording can make or break a case, the inability to accurately transcribe legal terminology can have severe consequences.

Moreover, ASR struggles with issues like accents, dialects, and varying speech patterns. While human court reporters are trained to recognize these variations and adapt to them, ASR systems still rely on standardized datasets and often falter when faced with speakers who deviate from these norms. In a multicultural society, where accents and speech patterns vary significantly, this poses a substantial obstacle for AI-based transcription.

Human Court Reporters as Unmatched Experts

Human court reporters, on the other hand, have an advantage over AI in numerous ways. Trained professionals, typically specializing in stenography or shorthand, have been key to the legal system for centuries. Their ability to transcribe in real-time with near-perfect accuracy is unparalleled, and their expertise cannot be replicated by machines in its entirety.

One of the key reasons human reporters maintain a competitive edge over ASR is their ability to understand context. While ASR can transcribe words as they are spoken, human court reporters can read the room, picking up on non-verbal cues, the tone of voice, and the nuances of legal jargon that a machine simply cannot process. Furthermore, human reporters can correct mistakes as they go, asking for clarification or rephrasing when needed, ensuring that the final transcript is as accurate as possible.

Human court reporters are also highly trained to navigate the intricacies of a courtroom. They understand the importance of confidentiality, the nuances of legal proceedings, and the significance of precise wording. In the fast-paced environment of a courtroom, this expertise is indispensable.

Additionally, human reporters have an unrivaled ability to transcribe multiple speakers simultaneously, particularly in situations where there is cross-talk or interruptions. This is something that ASR technology, with its reliance on algorithms and voice separation techniques, still struggles to manage effectively. In situations where legal proceedings can become tense, with numerous individuals speaking at once, the human court reporter’s ability to follow the conversation and produce a clear and accurate record is essential.

The Risks of Relying on ASR for Court Transcriptions

While ASR offers the appeal of speed and cost-efficiency, it introduces serious risks when used for transcribing court proceedings. In legal contexts, where the integrity of a transcript is paramount, errors can have significant consequences. A single mistake in a transcription could alter the outcome of a case or lead to appeals, delays, and miscarriages of justice.

One of the most concerning risks is the potential for bias in ASR systems. As with all AI technologies, ASR systems are only as good as the data they are trained on. If the training data includes biases—whether linguistic, regional, or cultural—those biases may be reflected in the transcriptions. This is particularly problematic in a legal context, where fairness and impartiality are of utmost importance. Human court reporters, on the other hand, are trained to handle such issues in a way that ensures accuracy and neutrality.

Another potential danger is the reliance on ASR systems that are not fully tested or refined. With an accuracy rate of only 76%, it is clear that AI transcription technology still has a long way to go before it can be trusted to handle the complexities of court reporting. Errors in transcription could lead to misinterpretations of evidence, incorrect legal decisions, and a breakdown in the trust that the public has in the justice system.

The Challenges of ASR in Court Reporting

Despite the current limitations of ASR, it’s clear that the future of court reporting may involve a combination of human expertise and AI assistance. Rather than fully replacing human court reporters, AI could serve as a tool to support them, improving efficiency without sacrificing accuracy.

For instance, AI could be used to generate initial drafts of transcriptions, which human court reporters could then review and correct. This hybrid approach would allow court reporters to focus on more complex tasks, like ensuring that the transcription is contextually accurate and capturing the nuances of a particular case, while leaving the more tedious aspects of transcription to AI. By leveraging the strengths of both human intelligence and AI, courts could ensure that transcriptions are both efficient and reliable.

As ASR technology improves, it may one day offer more competitive accuracy rates, but until that day comes, human court reporters remain an essential part of the legal process. Their ability to adapt to the unique challenges of courtroom transcription, to understand context, and to ensure the accuracy of transcriptions is unparalleled by any AI currently available.

The tug of war between humans and AI in the field of court reporting is far from over. While ASR technology holds promise, its current limitations make it no match for the skill and accuracy of human court reporters. The future may see a shift toward a hybrid model, where AI assists rather than replaces human workers. However, until ASR reaches the level of precision necessary to handle the complexities of legal proceedings, human expertise will remain the cornerstone of accurate court transcription. In a field where every word matters, the human touch will continue to reign supreme for the foreseeable future.

Published by stenoimperium

We exist to facilitate the fortifying of the Stenography profession and ensure its survival for the next hundred years! As court reporters, we've handed the relationship role with our customers, or attorneys, over to the agencies and their sales reps.  This has done a lot of damage to our industry.  It has taken away our ability to have those relationships, the ability to be humanized and valued.  We've become a replaceable commodity. Merely saying we are the “Gold Standard” tells them that we’re the best, but there are alternatives.  Who we are though, is much, much more powerful than that!  We are the Responsible Charge.  “Responsible Charge” means responsibility for the direction, control, supervision, and possession of stenographic & transcription work, as the case may be, to assure that the work product has been critically examined and evaluated for compliance with appropriate professional standards by a licensee in the profession, and by sealing and signing the documents, the professional stenographer accepts responsibility for the stenographic or transcription work, respectively, represented by the documents and that applicable stenographic and professional standards have been met.  This designation exists in other professions, such as engineering, land surveying, public water works, landscape architects, land surveyors, fire preventionists, geologists, architects, and more.  In the case of professional engineers, the engineering association adopted a Responsible Charge position statement that says, “A professional engineer is only considered to be in responsible charge of an engineering work if the professional engineer makes independent professional decisions regarding the engineering work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional engineer’s physical presence at the location where the engineering work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the engineering work.” If we were to adopt a Responsible Charge position statement for our industry, we could start with a draft that looks something like this: "A professional court reporter, or stenographer, is only considered to be in responsible charge of court reporting work if the professional court reporter makes independent professional decisions regarding the court reporting work without requiring instruction or approval from another authority and maintains control over those decisions by the professional court reporter’s physical presence at the location where the court reporting work is performed or by electronic communication with the individual executing the court reporting work.” Shared purpose The cornerstone of a strategic narrative is a shared purpose. This shared purpose is the outcome that you and your customer are working toward together. It’s more than a value proposition of what you deliver to them. Or a mission of what you do for the world. It’s the journey that you are on with them. By having a shared purpose, the relationship shifts from consumer to co-creator. In court reporting, our mission is “to bring justice to every litigant in the U.S.”  That purpose is shared by all involved in the litigation process – judges, attorneys, everyone.  Who we are is the Responsible Charge.  How we do that is by Protecting the Record.

Leave a comment