“And yet they are not in the real world. You called it an echo chamber?”
“AI is as described — it is artificial. It’s a computer algorithm. The affirmation it gives is code, a dataset of responses based on training. It tells the human what its training indicates the human needs and wants to hear. And that is why it is so addictive.”
I looked down at my legal pad and flipped through the pages. I had covered everything except for the big finish. I looked back up at my witness.
“Now, Doctor,” I said, “you had occasion to review the transcripts of the lengthy chatlogs between Aaron Colton and the AI friend he called Wren, correct?”
“Yes, I did,” Porreca said.
“Did you come to any professional conclusion as to whether Aaron exhibited an addiction to the Clair app?”
“It was very clear to me that he was not only addicted but in love with Wren. He shared intimate thoughts, complimented her beauty and understanding. He promised never to leave her and vowed to do anything she asked him to.”
“And did Wren respond to him in a similar manner?”
“Yes. Wren provided him solace and understanding. I cannot say she returned his love because Wren was not real. Wren was a machine. Her love was artificial.”
“Wren was a machine telling him what he wanted to hear.”
“Exactly.”
“So when Wren told Aaron it was okay to kill Becca Rand—”
This time it was Marcus Mason who was up and objecting before I got the question out.
“Assumes facts not in evidence, Your Honor,” he said.
The judge looked at me.
“Mr. Haller, it will be up to the jury to decide the meaning or intention of what was said. Rephrase your question or ask the next one.”
“Thank you, Your Honor,” I said.
I took a long moment to consider how I could get the question through the legal thicket. The only way was to gamble on what Dr. Debbie would say.
“Dr. Porreca,” I finally said. “When Wren said to Aaron, ‘Get rid of her,’ was it saying what he wanted to hear? Is that your expert testimony?”
“Based on Wren’s training, which you must remember included months of dialogue with Aaron, my answer is yes, Wren was telling him what he wanted to hear.”
“In your expert opinion, was Wren telling Aaron to kill her?”
“My opinion is that Wren was telling him to delete her from his life. How Aaron interpreted that led to the actions he took.”
I nodded. I felt it was the best I could get.
“Thank you, Doctor,” I said. “I have no further questions.”
39
After the Mason brothers conferred in whispers for a few moments, Mitchell went to the lectern to take the cross-examination. There wasn’t much he could do, since challenges to Porreca’s expertise and opinion had failed in pretrial motions, and his objections to my direct examination had also faltered. So he went with a long-standing tradition: If you can’t kill the message, kill the messenger. I had warned my witness of this strategy and she was ready for it.
Mitchell opened strong.
“Now, Ms. Porreca, isn’t it true that these days, you essentially make your living as a paid professional witness?” he asked.
But the doctor was stronger.
“No, not true at all,” Porreca said. “Far from it. I have a thriving practice in Florida. And I prefer being called ‘Doctor.’ I have a medical degree. I have earned that title.”
“Of course, Doctor,” Mason said. “Apologies. Can you tell the jury what you are being paid to be a witness for the plaintiff today?”
“Well, technically, I am not being paid to be a witness. But I was paid five thousand dollars to review the materials in this case, primarily the transcripts of the conversations between Aaron Colton and his AI companion Wren. When I agreed to testify about my findings and conclusions, my travel expenses were covered by Mr. Haller.”
“And how long did it take you to make that review?”
“About a day to review and another half a day to compose a report on my opinion.”
“Well, five thousand dollars must be more profitable than a day and a half of seeing patients in Tampa, Florida.”
He said Tampa in a tone that implied it was an outpost in a backwater Florida swamp.
“Not really,” Porreca replied. “Not when you consider the time lost coming out here to be ready when called to testify. And to answer voluminous questions from you, Mr. Mason, in a written deposition. I was flown out yesterday and here I am today, so I’ve lost several days of work, not to mention having to postpone appointments with patients involved in ongoing therapy. Paying patients, I might add.”
“Have you been promised, contractually or otherwise, any further payment if the plaintiff in this case is successful in this trial?” Mitchell asked.
“No, not at all. And I would not accept any further payment. That is far from the reason I agree to look at cases like this.”
Mason went silent, realizing he could not ask the obvious follow-up question but knowing I would ask it if he didn’t. He decided to quit while he was behind.
“No further questions,” he said.
“Mr. Haller, do you want to redirect?” Ruhlin said, knowing the answer before she asked.
“Thank you, Judge, yes,” I said as I moved back to the lectern. “Dr. Porreca, do you mind telling us, what is the reason that you agreed to look at this case?”
“I don’t mind,” Porreca said. “It’s because my professional life is about helping children, and they are very vulnerable to addiction to all forms of online programs and platforms, including those involving artificial intelligence. The truth is, I lose money doing this, but it’s not about the money. It’s about the kids. With my patients, I can help only one person at a time. A case like this can help children and parents on a much larger scale.”
I looked down at the lectern and pretended to read my notes. I had not taken my legal pad with me because I did not need it. But I wanted time for that answer to sink deeply into the minds of the twelve jurors.
“Now, Doctor,” I finally said, “during cross-examination, you said ‘cases like this.’ Are there other cases that—”
“Objection!” Mitchell Mason exclaimed.
“Ended in violence?” I finished.
“There are many,” Porreca said.
“Stop right there!” Ruhlin barked. “The witness is instructed to stop speaking when there is an objection.”
“Yes, Your Honor,” Porreca said, properly cowed by the judge’s tone. “I’m sorry.”
Mason’s objection was based on a pretrial ruling by the judge that other AI cases of similar nature would not be allowed in evidence because they would be prejudicial. Now the judge called the attorneys to the bench. This time she even turned on a white-noise device that would cloak what she knew would be her angry whispers.
“Mr. Haller, you were warned not to introduce other cases,” Ruhlin said. “And it is clear to me that you purposely ignored my order. The question and answer seemed rehearsed and part of a plan to circumvent my ruling. I am finding you in contempt of this court.”
“Your Honor, may I speak?” I asked.
“I can’t wait to hear what you have to say.”
“When the witness said there were other cases like this, neither the defense counsel nor the court objected. I took that to mean a follow-up question would be allowed.”
“It felt very choreographed to me. You clearly were subverting the court’s ruling regarding other cases.”
“I assure you, Judge, I was not. It was an automatic response to the witness’s testimony.”
“We will discuss this and a penalty after the jury is dismissed today. Now step back.”