Why AI “Prediction” Can Never Replace Verbatim Court Reporting

In recent debates around the Texas Supreme Court’s pending case on digital reporting, supporters of non-stenographic methods argue that digital tools are simply “another way” of capturing the record. One critic even suggested that “digital softwares compete with the steno machine but do not replace the court reporter.”

That claim is fundamentally flawed. To understand why, we must separate myth from reality—and, most importantly, understand the stark difference between stenographic CAT software and AI-driven speech-to-text engines.

---

CAT Software – A Tool for the Human Reporter

Computer-Aided Transcription (CAT) is not artificial intelligence. It is a dictionary-based translation system designed to convert shorthand strokes entered by a stenographer into English text. Every word, phrase, and syllable comes from the professional reporter’s hands, not from machine inference.

When a stenographer certifies a transcript, it means:

• They were physically present in the room.
• They captured every spoken word in realtime.
• They take legal responsibility for the record’s accuracy.

CAT software is no more a “replacement” for the court reporter than a scalpel is a replacement for a surgeon. It is a precision instrument operated by a skilled professional who is accountable for the result.

---

AI Speech-to-Text – Prediction, Not Precision

Digital reporting systems, by contrast, are built on artificial intelligence. They use large language models (LLMs) and statistical algorithms trained on massive datasets of past speech. Their function is not to capture speech, but to predict the next most likely word or phrase based on probability.

That difference matters:

• Homophones: AI will choose between “there,” “their,” and “they’re” based on guesswork, not context heard by a trained reporter.
• Overlapping voices: AI often collapses multiple speakers into one or drops words entirely.
• Accents, dialects, and technical terms: A stenographer can ask for clarification. An algorithm cannot—it fills the gap with its best guess.

These predictions may be “good enough” for casual use, like voice assistants or dictation software. But in the courtroom, where a single word can decide liability, liberty, or guilt, guesses are not acceptable.

---

The Illusion of “Competing, Not Replacing”

Defenders of digital reporting often insist that digital software is not intended to “replace” court reporters. In reality, that is exactly how it is being marketed and deployed.

Agencies advertise digital reporting as a cheaper alternative when a stenographer is available. Proceedings are recorded by an operator, then transcribed later—often by multiple transcribers who were not present. The result is a transcript without a custodian, without certification, and without accountability.

That is not competition; it is displacement. And the ones who lose are not the reporters, but the litigants, whose rights hinge on the reliability of the record.

---

The Accountability Divide

This is the heart of the issue: responsibility.

• A stenographer certifies: I was present. I transcribed this testimony faithfully. I stand behind every word.
• A digital system produces a file: Here is what the algorithm thinks was said, reconstructed by people who weren’t in the room.

One is admissible, verifiable evidence. The other is hearsay.

---

Why Texas—and the Nation—Should Care

The Texas Supreme Court’s decision won’t just affect one state. If Texas equates AI-driven prediction with stenographic verbatim reporting, it risks setting a national precedent that undermines trust in the appellate process. Without a true, certified record, the right to appeal evaporates.

The solution is not to lower the standard of justice but to invest in the next generation of stenographers. Far from “dying,” reporting programs—especially online—are thriving, with some even maintaining waitlists. Students are entering the field. What’s missing is recognition and support, not interest.

---

Conclusion

CAT software and AI digital reporting are not cousins. They are fundamentally different species. CAT is a precision tool wielded by a human reporter, accountable for every syllable. AI is a probability engine that predicts what might have been said.

In legal proceedings, prediction is not protection. Justice depends on certainty. And certainty depends on stenographers.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

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):