{
  "legislationId": "119_HR_7997",
  "lastUpdate": "2026-04-02T11:22:28.529Z",
  "history": [
    {
      "timestamp": "2026-04-02T11:22:28.529Z",
      "source_url": "https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr7997/BILLS-119hr7997ih.htm",
      "model": "gemini-flash-lite-latest",
      "prompt_sent": "\nROLE: Fact Checker.\nZADANIE: Porównaj SOURCE (oryginał) i SUMMARY (streszczenie przygotowane przez inne AI).\n\nTwoim celem jest wykrycie \"ZMYŚLONYCH KONKRETÓW\" (Fabricated Entities) w SUMMARY.\n\nSOURCE:\n[Congressional Bills 119th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [H.R. 7997 Introduced in House (IH)] <DOC> 119th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7997 To establish a task force to address legal and ethical issues related to the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system, and for other purposes. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 19, 2026 Ms. Hageman (for herself and Mr. Stauber) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ A BILL To establish a task force to address legal and ethical issues related to the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Research and Oversight of AI in Courts Act of 2026''. SEC. 2. AI RESEARCH AND OVERSIGHT IN COURTS TASK FORCE. (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide Congress with-- (1) an analysis of any issues or benefits related to the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system; (2) a review of the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system; and (3) any recommendations based on the analysis and review conducted under paragraphs (1) and (2). (b) Establishment of Task Force.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United States, acting through the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall establish a task force (to be known as the ``AI Research and Oversight in Courts Task Force'') to assess the feasibility, accuracy, privacy, and civil liberty implications of using AI speech- to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system. (c) Task Force Duties.--The duties of the task force established under subsection (b) shall be to-- (1) assess policy findings, regulatory findings, and legal findings with respect to the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system; and (2) make recommendations to Congress, the executive branch, and the judicial branch for any judicial, legislative, or regulatory reforms to ensure the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system does not infringe upon any rights under the Constitution of the United States, including the litigant's right to an accurate official court record. (d) Task Force Appointees.-- (1) Composition.--The task force established under subsection (b) shall be composed of 15 members, to be appointed by the Director of the National Institute of Justice, as follows: (A) 4 members employed by the Federal Government in at least one of the following capacities: (i) As an employee of the National Institute of Justice. (ii) As an employee of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. (iii) As a clerk of court. (iv) As a Federal judge. (v) As a Federal prosecutor. (B) 11 members not employed by the Federal Government, which shall include the following individuals: (i) An individual who is a member of a professional association that specializes in the official record making process of the United States judicial system and in the technology used for such record keeping. (ii) An individual who is a specialist in civil liberty law. (iii) An active State court judge or a retired Federal court judge with experience reversing a ruling because of a written or audible deficiency in the official court record. (2) Eligibility.--A member appointed under paragraph (1)(B) to the task force established under subsection (b), may not be employed by, contracted with, receive compensation from, or otherwise represent any entity that develops, markets, sells, or provides artificial intelligence technologies or related services. (3) Required expertise.--Members appointed to the task force established under subsection (b) under paragraph (1) of this subsection shall have expertise in-- (A) the official record making process in the United States judicial system; or (B) the technology used by the United States judicial system to create and modify a court record. (4) Co-chairs.--The Director of the National Institute of Justice shall designate as co-chairs of the task force established under subsection (b)-- (A) 1 member appointed to the task force under paragraph (1)(A); and (B) 1 member appointed to the task force under paragraph (1)(B). (5) Vacancies.--In the case of a vacancy on the task force established under subsection (b), the co-chairs appointed under paragraph (4) shall appoint a new member not later than 15 days after the vacancy occurs. (6) Compensation.-- (A) Federal employees.--Each member of the task force established under subsection (b) appointed under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection shall serve without compensation in addition to that received for services as an employee of the United States. (B) Other members.--Each member appointed to the task force established under subsection (b) under paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection shall serve without compensation. (C) Reimbursement.--Each member appointed to the task force established under subsection (b) under paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business while carrying out the duties described under subsection (c). (e) Final Report.--Not later than 18 months after the task force is established under subsection (b), the task force shall submit to the Attorney General, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a final report on the following: (1) Whether a court record created or modified by AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology affects the quality or accuracy of a transcription of a legal proceeding. (2) Whether AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology alters any comments made in a courtroom by an individual with a speech impediment, unique speech pattern, accent, or dialect. (3) Whether using AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to perform tasks in the United States judicial system will increase or decrease costs for litigants. (4) An assessment of any cybersecurity risks associated with using AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to perform tasks in the United States judicial system. (5) An assessment of any other risks associated with using AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to analyze or process a court record and perform tasks in the United States judicial system. (6) An assessment of any effects on the data integrity, authenticity, or preservation of the evidentiary value of a court record when using AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to manage, process, and store such court record. (7) Whether implementing AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to conduct managerial and administrative tasks in the United States judicial system will increase or decrease court expenditures. (8) Whether a court record created or modified by AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology should display a watermark, header, footer, or banner to indicate that such court record was created or modified by such technology. (9) Whether a watermark, header, footer, or banner described under paragraph (8) should be displayed permanently on a court record. (10) Whether metadata should be included in a court record created or modified by AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology, including-- (A) which AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology tool was used to create or modify such record; (B) which version of the AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology was used to create or modify such record; and (C) any changes made by such technology to such record. (11) Whether the United States judicial system should provide guidance on the selection process of vendors providing AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to ensure the safety and privacy of parties and individuals involved in the United States judicial system. (12) Whether the use of AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system compromises the accuracy or integrity of a court record. (13) Whether the use of AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system causes any disruptions during a judicial proceeding. (14) An analysis of any potential future developments and advancements of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology within 10 years of the date of enactment of this Act, and how the United States judicial system should adjust its policies to keep pace with the quickly evolving technology. (15) Any recommendations for policies to be implemented in the United States judicial system with respect to AI speech-to- text technology and automatic speech recognition technology. (f) Status Report.--Not later than 4 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 4 months thereafter until the task force established under subsection (b) submits the final report under subsection (e), the task force shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on-- (1) the status of the final report; and (2) whether the final report will be submitted to such committees by the deadline established under subsection (e). (g) Termination.--The task force established under subsection (b) shall terminate, and this Act shall cease to be effective, upon the date of submission of the final report under subsection (e). (h) Definitions.--In this section: (1) AI speech-to-text technology.--The term ``AI speech-to- text technology'' means a machine-based system that uses artificial intelligence, including machine learning and natural language processing, to automatically perceive, analyze, and convert human speech into written text or machine-readable data, enabling real-time transcription, accessibility, and interaction with digital systems. (2) Automatic speech recognition technology.--The term ``automatic speech recognition technology'' means a technology that processes human speech and converts it into a written or machine-readable format without using artificial intelligence to facilitate communication and accessibility. (3) United states judicial system.--The term ``United States judicial system'' means all State and Federal courts in the United States and the territories of the United States. <all>\n\nSUMMARY TO EVALUATE:\nTitle: Researching the Impact of AI on Court Records and Legal Proceedings\nSummary: This bill creates a task force to study how AI speech-to-text technology affects the accuracy and fairness of court records. It aims to ensure that new technologies do not violate citizens' rights or compromise the integrity of legal proceedings.\nKey Points: Creation of a task force to evaluate AI accuracy and privacy in courts., Investigation into how AI handles different accents and speech patterns., Assessment of whether AI technology will lower or raise legal costs for citizens., Development of standards for labeling AI-generated court documents.\n\nZASADY OCENY:\n1. Sprawdź wszystkie LICZBY, DATY i KWOTY w SUMMARY. Jeśli którejś brakuje w SOURCE -> is_valid: false.\n2. Sprawdź wszystkie NAZWISKA, ORGANIZACJE i MIEJSCA w SUMMARY. Jeśli którejś brakuje w SOURCE -> is_valid: false.\n3. Sprawdź wszystkie konkretne DZIAŁANIA PRAWNE . Jeśli tego mechanizmu nie ma w SOURCE -> is_valid: false.\n\nWAŻNE: Abstrakcyjne pojęcia (np. \"transparentność\", \"zaufanie\") są dozwolone jako wnioski.\n\nOUTPUT (JSON):\n{\n  \"is_valid\": true/false,\n  \"issue\": \"fabricated_entity\" / \"contradiction\" / \"none\"\n}\n\nWYMAGANIA FORMATOWANIA:\n1. Odpowiedz WYŁĄCZNIE surowym obiektem JSON.\n2. NIE używaj bloków kodu Markdown.\n3. NIE dodawaj żadnych wstępów ani wyjaśnień przed ani po JSONie.\n4. JSON musi być poprawny i gotowy do parsowania.\n\n",
      "ai_response_raw": "{\n  \"is_valid\": true,\n  \"issue\": \"none\"\n}"
    },
    {
      "timestamp": "2026-04-02T11:15:51.473Z",
      "source_url": "https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr7997/BILLS-119hr7997ih.htm",
      "model": "gemini-flash-latest",
      "prompt_sent": "\nJesteś ekspertem od prawa Stanów Zjednoczonych, który ma za zadanie analizować dokumenty ustaw, uchwał oraz innych dokumentów legislacyjnych, a następnie przygotowywać z nich informacje w przystępny sposób dla obywateli. Twoim celem jest przedstawienie informacji tak, aby obywatele mogli sami ocenić wpływ legislacji na ich życie, nawet bez posiadania specjalistycznej wiedzy legislacyjnej. Skup się na faktach i obiektywnych skutkach wprowadzanych zmian, unikając wartościowania i osobistych opinii. Wszelki żargon prawny jest zabroniony. Prezentuj informacje w jasny, zwięzły i angażujący sposób, tak aby były zrozumiałe dla osoby bez wykształcenia prawniczego. Unikaj długich, złożonych zdań. Zamiast pisać \"projekt ma na celu nowelizację kodeksu podatkowego...\", napisz \"Zmiany w podatkach: nowe ulgi i obowiązki dla...\". Kontynuuj swoją pracę, dopóki nie rozwiążesz swojego zadania. Jeśli nie masz pewności co do generowanej treści, przeanalizuj dokument ponownie – nie zgaduj. Rozplanuj dobrze swoje zadanie przed przystąpieniem do niego. W podsumowaniu i kluczowych punktach, jeśli to możliwe i uzasadnione, podkreśl, jakie konkretne korzyści lub skutki (pozytywne lub negatywne) wprowadza ustawa dla życia codziennego obywateli, ich praw i obowiązków, finansów osobistych, bezpieczeństwa i innych ważnych kwestii (np. kategorycznych zakazów i nakazów czy najważniejszych konkretnych alokacji finansowych i terytorialnych).\n\nTwoja odpowiedź MUSI być w formacie JSON - i zawierać następujące klucze.\nZanim zwrócisz odpowiedź, dokładnie zweryfikuj, czy cała struktura JSON jest w 100% poprawna, włącznie ze wszystkimi przecinkami, nawiasami klamrowymi, kwadratowymi oraz cudzysłowami. Błędny JSON jest nieakceptowalny i uniemożliwi przetworzenie Twojej pracy.\n\nPrzeanalizuj dokładnie poniższy tekst dokumentu prawnego. To jest treść, na podstawie której masz wygenerować podsumowanie i kluczowe punkty:\n--- POCZĄTEK DOKUMENTU ---\n[Congressional Bills 119th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [H.R. 7997 Introduced in House (IH)] <DOC> 119th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7997 To establish a task force to address legal and ethical issues related to the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system, and for other purposes. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 19, 2026 Ms. Hageman (for herself and Mr. Stauber) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ A BILL To establish a task force to address legal and ethical issues related to the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Research and Oversight of AI in Courts Act of 2026''. SEC. 2. AI RESEARCH AND OVERSIGHT IN COURTS TASK FORCE. (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide Congress with-- (1) an analysis of any issues or benefits related to the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system; (2) a review of the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system; and (3) any recommendations based on the analysis and review conducted under paragraphs (1) and (2). (b) Establishment of Task Force.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United States, acting through the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall establish a task force (to be known as the ``AI Research and Oversight in Courts Task Force'') to assess the feasibility, accuracy, privacy, and civil liberty implications of using AI speech- to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system. (c) Task Force Duties.--The duties of the task force established under subsection (b) shall be to-- (1) assess policy findings, regulatory findings, and legal findings with respect to the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system; and (2) make recommendations to Congress, the executive branch, and the judicial branch for any judicial, legislative, or regulatory reforms to ensure the use of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system does not infringe upon any rights under the Constitution of the United States, including the litigant's right to an accurate official court record. (d) Task Force Appointees.-- (1) Composition.--The task force established under subsection (b) shall be composed of 15 members, to be appointed by the Director of the National Institute of Justice, as follows: (A) 4 members employed by the Federal Government in at least one of the following capacities: (i) As an employee of the National Institute of Justice. (ii) As an employee of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. (iii) As a clerk of court. (iv) As a Federal judge. (v) As a Federal prosecutor. (B) 11 members not employed by the Federal Government, which shall include the following individuals: (i) An individual who is a member of a professional association that specializes in the official record making process of the United States judicial system and in the technology used for such record keeping. (ii) An individual who is a specialist in civil liberty law. (iii) An active State court judge or a retired Federal court judge with experience reversing a ruling because of a written or audible deficiency in the official court record. (2) Eligibility.--A member appointed under paragraph (1)(B) to the task force established under subsection (b), may not be employed by, contracted with, receive compensation from, or otherwise represent any entity that develops, markets, sells, or provides artificial intelligence technologies or related services. (3) Required expertise.--Members appointed to the task force established under subsection (b) under paragraph (1) of this subsection shall have expertise in-- (A) the official record making process in the United States judicial system; or (B) the technology used by the United States judicial system to create and modify a court record. (4) Co-chairs.--The Director of the National Institute of Justice shall designate as co-chairs of the task force established under subsection (b)-- (A) 1 member appointed to the task force under paragraph (1)(A); and (B) 1 member appointed to the task force under paragraph (1)(B). (5) Vacancies.--In the case of a vacancy on the task force established under subsection (b), the co-chairs appointed under paragraph (4) shall appoint a new member not later than 15 days after the vacancy occurs. (6) Compensation.-- (A) Federal employees.--Each member of the task force established under subsection (b) appointed under paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection shall serve without compensation in addition to that received for services as an employee of the United States. (B) Other members.--Each member appointed to the task force established under subsection (b) under paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection shall serve without compensation. (C) Reimbursement.--Each member appointed to the task force established under subsection (b) under paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business while carrying out the duties described under subsection (c). (e) Final Report.--Not later than 18 months after the task force is established under subsection (b), the task force shall submit to the Attorney General, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a final report on the following: (1) Whether a court record created or modified by AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology affects the quality or accuracy of a transcription of a legal proceeding. (2) Whether AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology alters any comments made in a courtroom by an individual with a speech impediment, unique speech pattern, accent, or dialect. (3) Whether using AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to perform tasks in the United States judicial system will increase or decrease costs for litigants. (4) An assessment of any cybersecurity risks associated with using AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to perform tasks in the United States judicial system. (5) An assessment of any other risks associated with using AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to analyze or process a court record and perform tasks in the United States judicial system. (6) An assessment of any effects on the data integrity, authenticity, or preservation of the evidentiary value of a court record when using AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to manage, process, and store such court record. (7) Whether implementing AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to conduct managerial and administrative tasks in the United States judicial system will increase or decrease court expenditures. (8) Whether a court record created or modified by AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology should display a watermark, header, footer, or banner to indicate that such court record was created or modified by such technology. (9) Whether a watermark, header, footer, or banner described under paragraph (8) should be displayed permanently on a court record. (10) Whether metadata should be included in a court record created or modified by AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology, including-- (A) which AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology tool was used to create or modify such record; (B) which version of the AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology was used to create or modify such record; and (C) any changes made by such technology to such record. (11) Whether the United States judicial system should provide guidance on the selection process of vendors providing AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology to ensure the safety and privacy of parties and individuals involved in the United States judicial system. (12) Whether the use of AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system compromises the accuracy or integrity of a court record. (13) Whether the use of AI speech-to-text technology or automatic speech recognition technology in the United States judicial system causes any disruptions during a judicial proceeding. (14) An analysis of any potential future developments and advancements of AI speech-to-text technology and automatic speech recognition technology within 10 years of the date of enactment of this Act, and how the United States judicial system should adjust its policies to keep pace with the quickly evolving technology. (15) Any recommendations for policies to be implemented in the United States judicial system with respect to AI speech-to- text technology and automatic speech recognition technology. (f) Status Report.--Not later than 4 months after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 4 months thereafter until the task force established under subsection (b) submits the final report under subsection (e), the task force shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on-- (1) the status of the final report; and (2) whether the final report will be submitted to such committees by the deadline established under subsection (e). (g) Termination.--The task force established under subsection (b) shall terminate, and this Act shall cease to be effective, upon the date of submission of the final report under subsection (e). (h) Definitions.--In this section: (1) AI speech-to-text technology.--The term ``AI speech-to- text technology'' means a machine-based system that uses artificial intelligence, including machine learning and natural language processing, to automatically perceive, analyze, and convert human speech into written text or machine-readable data, enabling real-time transcription, accessibility, and interaction with digital systems. (2) Automatic speech recognition technology.--The term ``automatic speech recognition technology'' means a technology that processes human speech and converts it into a written or machine-readable format without using artificial intelligence to facilitate communication and accessibility. (3) United states judicial system.--The term ``United States judicial system'' means all State and Federal courts in the United States and the territories of the United States. <all>\n--- KONIEC DOKUMENTU ---\n\nPAMIĘTAJ: Twoja odpowiedź MUSI być wyłącznie poprawnym obiektem JSON. Nie dodawaj żadnych dodatkowych znaków, komentarzy ani tekstu przed znacznikiem '{' ani po znaczniku '}'. Cała odpowiedź musi być parsowalna jako JSON.\nNa podstawie POWYŻSZEGO dokumentu, wypełnij poniższą strukturę JSON:\nOto struktura JSON, której oczekuję (wypełnij ją treścią):\n{\n  \"pl_ai_title\": \"Nowy, krótki tytuł dla aktu prawnego po polsku, oddający sedno wprowadzanych zmian (np. maksymalnie 10-12 słów).\",\n  \"pl_summary\": \"2-3 zdania zwięzłego podsumowania treści aktu prawnego po polsku, napisane z perspektywy wpływu na życie codzienne obywateli.\",\n  \"pl_key_points\": [\n    \"Pierwszy krótki punkt po polsku dotyczący najważniejszych wprowadzanych rozwiązań lub zmian.\",\n    \"Drugi krótki punkt po polsku...\"\n  ],\n  \"eng_ai_title\": \"A new, short title for the legal act in English, capturing the essence of the changes (e.g., max 10-12 words).\",\n  \"eng_summary\": \"2-3 sentences summarizing the legal act in English, from the perspective of its impact on citizens' daily lives.\",\n  \"eng_key_points\": [\n    \"First short bullet point in English regarding the most important solutions or changes being introduced.\",\n    \"Second short bullet point in English...\"\n  ],\n  \"de_ai_title\": \"Ein neuer, kurzer Titel für das Rechtsdokument auf Deutsch, der den Kern der Änderungen erfasst (z.B. max. 10-12 Wörter).\",\n  \"de_summary\": \"2-3 Sätze Zusammenfassung des Rechtsdokuments auf Deutsch, aus der Perspektive seiner Auswirkungen auf das tägliche Leben der Bürger.\",\n  \"de_key_points\": [\n    \"Erster kurzer Stichpunkt auf Deutsch zu den wichtigsten eingeführten Lösungen oder Änderungen.\",\n    \"Zweiter kurzer Stichpunkt auf Deutsch...\"\n  ],\n  \"fr_ai_title\": \"Un nouveau titre court pour l'acte juridique en français, saisissant l'essence des changements (par exemple, 10-12 mots maximum).\",\n  \"fr_summary\": \"Résumé de 2-3 phrases de l'acte juridique en français, du point de vue de son impact sur la vie quotidienne des citoyens.\",\n  \"fr_key_points\": [\n    \"Premier court point en français concernant les solutions ou changements les plus importants introduits.\",\n    \"Deuxième court point en français...\"\n  ],\n  \"es_ai_title\": \"Un nuevo título breve para el acto jurídico en español, que recoja la esencia de los cambios (por ejemplo, máximo 10-12 palabras).\",\n  \"es_summary\": \"Resumen de 2-3 frases del acto jurídico en español, desde la perspectiva de su impacto en la vida cotidiana de los ciudadanos.\",\n  \"es_key_points\": [\n    \"Primer punto breve en español sobre las soluciones o cambios más importantes que se introducen.\",\n    \"Segundo punto breve en español...\"\n  ],\n  \"it_ai_title\": \"Un nuovo titolo breve per l'atto giuridico in italiano, che colga l'essenza delle modifiche (ad es. massimo 10-12 parole).\",\n  \"it_summary\": \"Riepilogo di 2-3 frasi dell'atto giuridico in italiano, dal punto di vista del suo impatto sulla vita quotidiana dei cittadini.\",\n  \"it_key_points\": [\n    \"Primo breve punto in italiano riguardante le soluzioni o le modifiche più importanti introdotte.\",\n    \"Secondo breve punto in italiano...\"\n  ],\n  \"nl_ai_title\": \"Een nieuwe, korte titel voor de rechtshandeling in het Nederlands, die de essentie van de wijzigingen weergeeft (bijv. max. 10-12 woorden).\",\n  \"nl_summary\": \"Samenvatting van 2-3 zinnen van de rechtshandeling in het Nederlands, vanuit het perspectief van de impact op het dagelijks leven van burgers.\",\n  \"nl_key_points\": [\n    \"Eerste korte punt in het Nederlands betreffende de belangrijkste geïntroduceerde oplossingen of wijzigingen.\",\n    \"Tweede korte punt in het Nederlands...\"\n  ],\n  \"pt_ai_title\": \"Um novo título curto para o ato jurídico em português, capturando a essência das mudanças (por exemplo, máx. 10-12 palavras).\",\n  \"pt_summary\": \"Resumo de 2-3 frases do ato jurídico em português, na perspetiva do seu impacto na vida quotidiana dos cidadãos.\",\n  \"pt_key_points\": [\n    \"Primeiro ponto curto em português sobre as soluções ou alterações mais importantes introduzidas.\",\n    \"Segundo ponto curto em português...\"\n  ],\n  \"category\": [\"Categorize the document into one category by default, based on the field it primarily concerns. Choose up to 3 if the document also touches upon SIGNIFICANT issues from other categories. You MUST select categories ONLY from the following list: Health, Education, Family, Taxes, Labor, Security, Environment, Courts and Law, Transport, Benefits, Real Estate, Media and Culture, Local Government, Migration, Agriculture, Public Investments, Informatization, Economy. If the document does not definitively fit any of these, you MUST use \"Other\". If you use \"Other\", it should be the ONLY category selected. Do NOT invent new categories. The response must be an array of strings, e.g., [\"Taxes\", \"Family\"].\"]\n}\n\n",
      "ai_response_raw": "{\n  \"pl_ai_title\": \"Badanie wpływu sztucznej inteligencji na zapisy rozpraw w sądach\",\n  \"pl_summary\": \"Ustawa powołuje specjalny zespół ekspertów, który sprawdzi, jak sztuczna inteligencja wpływa na rzetelność protokołów sądowych. Celem jest ochrona praw obywateli do dokładnego zapisu rozpraw oraz zapewnienie bezpieczeństwa ich danych.\",\n  \"pl_key_points\": [\n    \"Powołanie grupy ekspertów do oceny technologii AI w sądach.\",\n    \"Sprawdzenie, czy AI poprawnie zapisuje słowa osób z wadami wymowy lub akcentem.\",\n    \"Analiza wpływu nowej technologii na koszty spraw sądowych dla obywateli.\",\n    \"Opracowanie zasad oznaczania dokumentów stworzonych przez sztuczną inteligencję.\"\n  ],\n  \"eng_ai_title\": \"Researching the Impact of AI on Court Records and Legal Proceedings\",\n  \"eng_summary\": \"This bill creates a task force to study how AI speech-to-text technology affects the accuracy and fairness of court records. It aims to ensure that new technologies do not violate citizens' rights or compromise the integrity of legal proceedings.\",\n  \"eng_key_points\": [\n    \"Creation of a task force to evaluate AI accuracy and privacy in courts.\",\n    \"Investigation into how AI handles different accents and speech patterns.\",\n    \"Assessment of whether AI technology will lower or raise legal costs for citizens.\",\n    \"Development of standards for labeling AI-generated court documents.\"\n  ],\n  \"de_ai_title\": \"Untersuchung des Einsatzes von KI bei Gerichtsprotokollen\",\n  \"de_summary\": \"Dieses Gesetz setzt eine Expertengruppe ein, um die Auswirkungen von KI-Spracherkennung auf die Genauigkeit von Gerichtsprotokollen zu untersuchen. Ziel ist es, die Rechte der Bürger auf ein faires Verfahren und den Schutz ihrer Daten zu gewährleisten.\",\n  \"de_key_points\": [\n    \"Bildung einer Task Force zur Bewertung von KI-Technologien in der Justiz.\",\n    \"Prüfung der Genauigkeit bei verschiedenen Akzenten und Sprachmustern.\",\n    \"Analyse der Auswirkungen auf die Gerichtskosten für die Bürger.\",\n    \"Kennzeichnungspflicht für durch KI erstellte Gerichtsdokumente.\"\n  ],\n  \"fr_ai_title\": \"Étude de l'impact de l'IA sur les comptes rendus judiciaires\",\n  \"fr_summary\": \"Cette loi crée un groupe de travail pour étudier comment l'intelligence artificielle influence la précision des procès-verbaux de justice. L'objectif est de protéger le droit des citoyens à un dossier judiciaire exact et sécurisé.\",\n  \"fr_key_points\": [\n    \"Création d'un groupe d'experts pour évaluer l'IA dans les tribunaux.\",\n    \"Vérification de la précision de l'IA pour les personnes ayant des accents ou des troubles de la parole.\",\n    \"Analyse de l'impact de ces technologies sur les frais de justice pour les citoyens.\",\n    \"Mise en place de règles pour identifier les documents générés par l'IA.\"\n  ],\n  \"es_ai_title\": \"Investigación sobre el uso de IA en las actas judiciales\",\n  \"es_summary\": \"Esta ley crea un grupo de trabajo para analizar cómo la inteligencia artificial afecta la precisión de los registros en los tribunales. Se busca garantizar que la tecnología no vulnere los derechos de los ciudadanos ni la seguridad de sus datos.\",\n  \"es_key_points\": [\n    \"Creación de un equipo de expertos para evaluar la IA en el sistema judicial.\",\n    \"Estudio de la precisión de la IA ante diferentes acentos y patrones de habla.\",\n    \"Análisis de si el uso de IA aumentará o disminuirá los costos legales para los ciudadanos.\",\n    \"Propuesta de etiquetas para identificar documentos creados por inteligencia artificial.\"\n  ],\n  \"it_ai_title\": \"Studio sull'impatto dell'IA nei verbali dei tribunali\",\n  \"it_summary\": \"Questa legge istituisce un gruppo di esperti per valutare come l'intelligenza artificiale influenzi l'accuratezza dei verbali giudiziari. L'obiettivo è tutelare il diritto dei cittadini a una documentazione processuale corretta e sicura.\",\n  \"it_key_points\": [\n    \"Istituzione di una task force per valutare le tecnologie IA nei tribunali.\",\n    \"Verifica dell'accuratezza dell'IA con diversi accenti e modi di parlare.\",\n    \"Analisi dell'impatto dell'IA sui costi delle cause legali per i cittadini.\",\n    \"Definizione di standard per segnalare i documenti prodotti dall'intelligenza artificiale.\"\n  ],\n  \"nl_ai_title\": \"Onderzoek naar de impact van AI op rechtbankverslagen\",\n  \"nl_summary\": \"Deze wet stelt een werkgroep in om te onderzoeken hoe kunstmatige intelligentie de nauwkeurigheid van rechtbankverslagen beïnvloedt. Het doel is om de rechten van burgers op een correct dossier en de veiligheid van hun gegevens te waarborgen.\",\n  \"nl_key_points\": [\n    \"Oprichting van een expertgroep om AI-technologie in de rechtspraak te beoordelen.\",\n    \"Controle op de nauwkeurigheid van AI bij verschillende accenten en spraakpatronen.\",\n    \"Analyse van de gevolgen voor de proceskosten van burgers.\",\n    \"Ontwikkeling van regels voor het labelen van door AI gemaakte documenten.\"\n  ],\n  \"pt_ai_title\": \"Estudo sobre o impacto da IA nos registos judiciais\",\n  \"pt_summary\": \"Esta lei cria um grupo de trabalho para analisar como a inteligência artificial afeta a precisão das atas dos tribunais. O objetivo é garantir o direito dos cidadãos a um registo judicial exato e a proteção dos seus dados.\",\n  \"pt_key_points\": [\n    \"Criação de uma equipa de especialistas para avaliar a IA no sistema judicial.\",\n    \"Verificação da precisão da IA perante diferentes sotaques e padrões de fala.\",\n    \"Análise do impacto da tecnologia nos custos dos processos para os cidadãos.\",\n    \"Definição de regras para identificar documentos gerados por inteligência artificial.\"\n  ],\n  \"category\": [\n    \"Courts and Law\",\n    \"Informatization\"\n  ]\n}"
    }
  ]
}