Skip to main content
  1. Home
  2. Emerging Tech
  3. Smart Home
  4. Legacy Archives

Nobody expects the robotic inquisition: Testimonies prove more accurate when hosted by a robot

Add as a preferred source on Google

robotlawyerPrepare for the era of the robot cross-examination. A study at Mississippi State University found that the best way to combat the potential for leading the testimony of a witness during legal proceedings is to remove humans from the equation as much as possible. This can only mean one thing: Out with the lawyers – human lawyers, at least.

The study was led by Mississippi State’s Cindy Bethel, with her team showing 100 “witnesses” a slide show that illustrated a man stealing money and a calculator from a desk drawer while in the room under the pretext of fixing a chair next to the desk. After the slide show finished, the witnesses were split into four groups, with two groups interviewed about what they had seen by a human, and the other two interviewed by a robot remote-controlled by the researchers.

Recommended Videos

The reason for four groups instead of two is that two groups – one each belonging to the human and robot interviewers – were asked leading questions that offered false information about what appeared in the slide show, while the other groups were simply asked about what they had seen. Surprisingly, the group fed false information by the human interviewer ended up scoring roughly 40 percent lower in terms of accurate recall, remembering objects that were not visible during the slide show but were mentioned by the person interviewing them. Conversely, the same questions delivered by the remote-controlled robot appeared to have no impact on the recall of the witnesses.

Bethel called the results “a very big surprise,” adding that the group fed false information by the robot “just were not affected by what the robot was saying. The scripts were identical. We even told the human interviewers to be as robotic as possible.”

What was being demonstrated – perhaps more than Bethel had initially suspected would be the case – is something called the misinformation effect, in which people’s memories are “nudged” in particular directions by the choice of words being used in the questions responsible for the memories. Children are said to be particularly susceptible to this phenomenon, which explains why the Starksville Police Department, just ten minutes away from the university hosting Bethel’s experiments, is said to be interested in the possibilities of using a robotic interviewer when dealing with child testimony in future. Mark Ballard, an office at the police department, said that officers work hard to be as neutral as possible when dealing with children, favoring the use of certified child psychologists where possible. Still, any accidental influence might be eliminated altogether with a robot interviewer.

“It’s tough to argue that the robot brings any memories or theories with it from its background,” he says.

Well, unless someone programs it to, of course.

Image via Tom-One

Graeme McMillan
Former Digital Trends Contributor
A transplant from the west coast of Scotland to the west coast of America, Graeme is a freelance writer with a taste for pop…
AI can’t tell if you’re gay or straight, but it thinks it knows what both look like
AI knows it shouldn't judge a face, but apparently, drawing one is a different story.
Emilia Clarke AI generated stock image. Gemini / Nano Banana is on the left

We've all been told not to judge a book by its cover, and you'd think AI would follow that rule, too. Ask an AI chatbot to guess someone's sexual orientation just by looking at their face, and it'll likely tell you that there's no reliable way to know. But what happens when you ask that same model to change someone's appearance to match a particular sexual orientation? Well, that's where things get uncomfortable.

A new study, accepted for presentation at the 2026 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, found that AI models from OpenAI and Google can be inconsistent when handling sensitive personal characteristics. They might refuse to make assumptions about someone based on their appearance, but when asked to generate those same assumptions visually, the results tell a very different story.

Read more
A clinical study with Google’s special chatbot shows a strong future for AI in healthcare
Google’s medical AI could give doctors a useful second set of eyes
Google Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer chatbot

AI is a useful tool for handling many tasks in private as well as professional settings, but medical advice, especially diagnosis, is one area where I generally draw the line. General-purpose chatbots tend to sound confident and convincing while giving medical advice, even when they are wrong, as studies have previously found.

That being said, Google's new research points to a much more convincing use for AI in healthcare. Its Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer chatbot, or AMIE for short, could help prepare both sides before the appointment even begins.

Read more
Relaxation music had one job in this pain study, and favorite songs did it better
Patients who chose their music reported less pain after an IV insertion
Book, Publication, Indoors

Patients’ favorite songs helped ease pain after an IV insertion in a new study, while music specifically chosen for relaxation didn’t show a significant benefit. The soothing soundtrack could apparently use a second opinion.

Researchers at University Hospital Zürich studied 204 patients receiving an IV cannula before an MRI scan. Those listening to their chosen music reported less pain 30 seconds and two minutes after insertion. Across the full sample, the clearest relief came after the needle went in.

Read more