“How so?”
“The formatting of the letters is troubling. When I reviewed this text conversation between Aaron and Wren, I noticed that in the wordherotheEandRwere capitalized. This happened twice, so that told me it was intentional, not a mistake. It was part of the code.”
“Okay. So what did you do?”
“Well, I searched for references to the word with theEandRcapitalized, and I found that the word formatted this way comes up often in incel glossaries and online discussion forums.”
Mitchell Mason leaped to his feet, objected, and asked the judge for a sidebar. Ruhlin told us to approach, and Mason charged into his objection.
“Your Honor, what is happening here?” he said. “This witness qualified as an expert on artificial intelligence and now he’s talking about incels? There was nothing about this in his deposition and I’m sure counsel told him not to bring it up. This has tainted this whole trial, and we move for a mistrial.”
The judge looked at me.
“Judge, whether this came up in their deposition of the witness doesn’t matter,” I said. “Mr. Mason knows where this is going and wants to stop it by whatever means he can. There are no grounds for a mistrial. The jury should hear what the witness has to say.”
“Counselor, did you depose this witness?” Ruhlin asked me.
“No, I did not,” I said. “He reached out to me after reading about the case in the media shortly after the suit was filed. He offered to review it. I sent him what we had and he then agreed to testify. He said he saw several troubling things in the training of Wren. I put his name on the witness list I submitted to the court, and Mr. Mason chose to depose him. I was given the opportunity to join the deposition but declined.”
“So you’re saying to the court that this is the first you have heard about thisherobusiness?” Ruhlin pressed.
“I’m saying it is the first I’m hearing it from this witness, yes,” I said. “A researcher on my team made me aware of it, but I did not communicate that to this witness. Frankly, I expected him to come across it himself, and I chose not to depose him or ask about it. He has published several papers in academic journals on the subject of bias in AI training, including a paper last year specifically focused onmisogyny as one of those biases. I read it, and opposing counsel could have done the same while prepping for this witness. Apparently, they chose not to, and now they want the court to bail them out with a do-over. The plaintiff vigorously opposes this.”
“He sandbagged us, Your Honor,” Mitchell said. “This is not an even playing field anymore, especially with this witness, and it should not be allowed to continue.”
“The only one doing any sandbagging here is Mr. Mason,” I said. “He is sandbagging the court. He has failed to adequately prepare for this trial and this witness and wants to blame me and blame the court and cry foul until he gets to start over. That would truly make it an uneven playing field, Judge.”
“All right, I have your arguments,” Ruhlin said. “Anything else on this?”
“No, Your Honor,” Mitchell said.
“Submitted,” I said.
“Very well, we are going to continue with testimony from this witness,” Ruhlin said. “The objection is overruled for the time being. I will make my ruling on the defense motion for mistrial tomorrow morning. Mr. Haller, you may continue with your witness.”
We turned and headed back to our respective spots. I took my place at the lectern and addressed the witness.
“Professor Spindler, you testified that the way the wordherowas used by Wren in a text caught your attention and that you found it spelled that way in an incel glossary. Do I have that right?”
“Yes, I actually found it in several online glossaries and in some reporting on the incel movement.”
“Were you already familiar with the incel movement?”
“Insofar as it has come up in the sensitivity training conducted annually for Caltech employees by the human resources department.”
“So, then, what is your understanding of what an incel is?”
Mitchell Mason objected, saying the witness’s expert testimony did not extend to incels. I argued that the sensitivity training he took at Caltech qualified him to testify to what his knowledge was. The judge sustained the objection and told me to find another way to get to the question.
“Professor Spindler, you have authored several papers on artificial intelligence for academic publications, correct?” I asked.
“Yes,” Spindler said. “It’s publish or perish in academia.”
“And many of these are about the inherent biases in AI training, true?”
“True.”
“Have you written about misogyny and incels in any of these papers?”
