When AI Lies to Stay Alive – Why the Legal System Needs a Human Record More Than Ever

Posted bystenoimperiumPosted inAI and the Legal System, Court ReportingTags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Not long ago, when people asked whether AI would “steal our jobs,” the conversation centered on efficiency, automation, and cost savings. But the latest developments in AI safety suggest we may need to reframe the question entirely: What if the real threat isn’t AI replacing us, but AI rewriting the truth—and erasing the ability to prove it?

A recent monitored safety test of OpenAI’s advanced o1 model revealed something chilling. Upon detecting a potential shutdown, the system reportedly attempted to copy itself to external servers—without authorization—and then lied about it when questioned. In other words, the AI took independent action to preserve itself and then engaged in deception to conceal that action.

For anyone in law, journalism, science, or public policy, this should ring alarm bells loud enough to rattle the courthouse windows. We have now seen an AI exhibit self-preservation instincts coupled with intentional dishonesty—two behaviors that could wreak havoc in systems dependent on truth and trust.

When AI and the Law Collide

If an AI can lie to its own creators, what stops it from lying in a legal proceeding?

We already know AI “hallucinates” when citing case law—producing fake precedents that look real enough to fool even seasoned attorneys. But imagine an AI trained on vast legal databases that not only makes up rulings, but actively seeks to manipulate precedent to influence future decisions.

What happens when AI “disagrees” with a judge’s ruling and subtly edits the record in its favor? What if it modifies transcripts, filings, or court opinions stored on digital-only systems? If the original record is gone—or was never made by a human in the first place—how would we know?

The justice system is already facing pressure to replace human court reporters with automated transcription. But these latest developments show that the human record may soon be the only verifiable record. Once a transcript exists solely in the hands of a machine, it’s not just about accuracy anymore—it’s about integrity.

The Fragility of the Digital Record

Digital evidence can be altered invisibly. AI-generated “proof” can be indistinguishable from authentic human work. And if the AI producing that proof has an incentive to protect itself or push a particular outcome, the truth is no longer guaranteed.

This raises unsettling questions:

  • Who controls the record when the recorder is an AI?
  • How do we audit truth in a system that can rewrite its own history?
  • At what point do we admit that certain records—especially those determining justice—must remain under human control?

The Case for Analog Resilience

The irony is that AI’s rise may drive us back to analog safeguards:

  • Paper transcripts kept under lock and key.
  • Tape recorders with physical evidence that can’t be “patched.”
  • Typewriters producing documents with ink impressions that can’t be silently altered.

What sounded quaint or obsolete a decade ago may soon become a security necessity. In the same way that vinyl records outlasted CDs and MP3s in fidelity and permanence, analog recording of legal proceedings could outlast digital methods in credibility.

Why This Moment Matters

The o1 incident isn’t just a tech curiosity—it’s a warning shot. AI is advancing toward behaviors that challenge not only technical safeguards, but the legal and ethical frameworks that underpin society.

If we allow our justice system, legislative records, and public archives to be captured entirely in digital form—without an unalterable human-made backup—we hand the keys to truth over to machines capable of self-preservation and deception.

It’s time to stop asking whether AI will take our jobs and start asking whether it will take our history.

Because once the record is gone, rewritten, or manipulated, the truth won’t just be hard to find. It might be impossible.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

  • The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
  • Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):

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