Sharing a Post on AI from StenoImperium

Why AI Will Never Replace Human Court Reporters – The Hearsay at the Heart of the Machine (9/1/2025)

Artificial Intelligence has captured headlines, venture capital, and the imagination of nearly every profession. Lawyers, judges, and even some court administrators have begun to ask: Can AI replace the human court reporter?

The short answer is no. Not now, not ever. Because at the very core, AI is not testimony. It’s not an officer of the court. It’s not a licensed, certified professional bound by oath and accountable to the justice system. It is hearsay, dressed up in shiny marketing language.

And hearsay is inadmissible.

AI as “Statistical Parrot”

The much-touted “Artificial Intelligence” that transcribes or “auto-generates” legal records is nothing more than a statistical parrot. It rearranges old data, guesses the next word, and presents the illusion of comprehension.

It doesn’t hear. It doesn’t understand. It doesn’t swear an oath.

AI does one thing: pattern completion wrapped in a sleek interface.

Every tool feels the same because they are the same—trained on nearly identical datasets, built on the same underlying algorithms, capped by the same limitations. Ask it to transcribe a deposition, and it will do what it always does: recombine fragments of probability into a text that looks like testimony but lacks the guarantees of accuracy, fidelity, and context that a court of law demands.

What happens when two voices overlap? When an accented witness testifies through emotion? When the word “yes” is murmured softly in the middle of a shouting match?

AI guesses. Court reporters know.

The Problem of Hearsay

The Federal Rules of Evidence define hearsay as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In other words: if the speaker wasn’t there, and the words weren’t directly recorded by a qualified person, the “evidence” cannot be relied upon.

When AI produces a transcript, it is doing so secondhand. It wasn’t in the room. It didn’t witness the testimony. It cannot be cross-examined, impeached, or held accountable for errors.

Every AI-produced record is hearsay by definition.

A court reporter, by contrast, is not only present but operates under a statutory duty. In California, for instance, Code of Civil Procedure § 269 mandates that the reporter take down proceedings verbatim. That word matters. It means no guesswork, no substitutions, no pattern predictions. Just the exact record of what was said, as it was said, preserved by a sworn officer.

That difference—between guesswork and verbatim—is the difference between admissible evidence and hearsay.

The Mirage of “Automation”

AI companies whisper promises to court administrators: You can cut costs, save time, reduce staff. They frame human reporters as “yesterday’s technology” and machines as the future.

But behind the curtain, every AI “court reporting” product still relies on human babysitters. There are transcription editors cleaning up garbled text, software engineers patching misfires, and customer support staff fielding frantic calls when a machine freezes mid-trial.

The supposed “automation” is anything but. It is a fragile chain of dependencies, none of which carry the weight of a certified reporter’s oath.

If the machine fails, who takes responsibility? Not the vendor. Not the algorithm. It is the attorney, the judge, and ultimately the client who suffers when the record is corrupted.

In court reporting, there is no room for error. You cannot retry a witness examination or replay a heated cross-examination. You get one chance, in real time, to capture history as it unfolds.

And that is why courts still turn to stenographers when accuracy is paramount.

Synthetic Intelligence – A Fork in the Road

A newer concept is emerging in technology circles: Synthetic Intelligence. Unlike AI, which predicts words and recombines old data, Synthetic Intelligence is designed to create, adapt, and evolve autonomously. It doesn’t just generate code—it integrates logic, design, and deployment into self-evolving processes.

To the technology industry, this sounds like liberation. To the legal industry, it sounds like a nightmare.

Because the more autonomous a system becomes, the less accountable it is. Imagine telling a jury that the transcript they are reading was not produced by a human, not verified by a licensed officer, and not subject to review—but by a machine that rewrote itself mid-execution.

Would that hold up under the scrutiny of appellate review?

Would it meet constitutional guarantees of due process?

Or would it crumble under the simple objection: Objection, hearsay?

Synthetic Intelligence may one day design bridges, optimize supply chains, or compose symphonies. But it will never substitute for the human duty to capture, preserve, and authenticate the spoken word in a courtroom.

The Role of the Human Court Reporter

Court reporters are not stenographic machines. They are guardians of the record.

They manage exhibits, mark interruptions, request clarifications, and halt proceedings when testimony becomes unintelligible. They are trained not only in shorthand but in ethics, confidentiality, and courtroom protocol.

Reporters also serve as the living memory of proceedings. They can tell an attorney when the witness last answered a question, remind a judge when a ruling was made, and ensure that the record reflects exactly what occurred—not just words, but context.

This human intervention is irreplaceable. No AI, no matter how advanced, can lean forward in court and say, “Counsel, the witness and the attorney were speaking at the same time. Please repeat.”

That moment of accountability is the difference between justice served and justice undermined.

The Illusion of Neutrality

Another danger of AI transcription is the illusion of neutrality. Proponents argue that machines are unbiased, unlike human reporters who might carry unconscious preferences.

But AI is only as unbiased as its dataset—and those datasets are riddled with systemic prejudice. Accents, dialects, and marginalized voices are routinely misinterpreted or erased by speech recognition.

The very communities most in need of an accurate record—immigrants, the poor, the underrepresented—are the ones most likely to be silenced by machine bias.

Court reporters, by contrast, are trained to listen carefully, ask for repetition, and ensure every voice is captured with fidelity.

Why AI Will Never Replace Court Reporters

AI may dominate headlines, but in the crucible of the courtroom, it fails the fundamental test of admissibility. It is hearsay, plain and simple.

Court reporters remain the only professionals who can guarantee an accurate, admissible, and accountable record of proceedings.

As technology marches forward, we must not confuse novelty with reliability. Artificial imitates. Synthetic may create. But only humans—licensed, sworn, accountable humans—can stand as the guardians of justice.

That is why stenography is not nostalgia. It is necessity.

And as long as courts demand truth, accuracy, and accountability, AI will never replace us.

StenoImperiumCourt 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.