Ariel Deshe did not set out to build legal software. He was a public defender trying to review more than a million pages of discovery in a case where his client was facing multiple life sentences. After the client received a 64-year sentence for a crime Ariel believes he did not commit, Ariel left public defense and began building TrialKit.
In Episode 21 of the AAAi Podcast, Bridget McCormack and Zach Abramowitz speak with Ariel about the sheer volume of digital discovery, wrongful convictions, and “legally naked” businesses, and why AI is changing what kinds of legal work are possible.
Key Takeaways
Discovery Has Become Impossible to Manage Manually
Ariel described a dramatic shift in criminal discovery. Cases that once arrived as boxes of paper now often include terabytes of phone extractions, surveillance footage, social media records, videos, location data, and other forms of digital evidence.
The result is a discovery burden that no individual lawyer, and often no team, can meaningfully review using traditional methods. In some cases, the volume of material is not merely inefficient to process; it is functionally impossible.
Tools like TrialKit do more than make existing tasks faster; they make previously impossible tasks possible. This conversation also highlights a high-value use case for AI: as a tool to accomplish work that could not realistically be done before.
AI Is Expanding Which Cases Can Be Taken On
A central part of TrialKit’s impact is that it brings advanced tooling to lawyers and clients who historically could not afford state-of-the-art discovery technology. That matters in criminal defense, but the same dynamic exists across the legal system.
Many small and midsize businesses are effectively “legally naked,” facing legal problems without meaningful access to legal support. One dispute can be financially devastating, yet traditional legal processes are often too expensive, too slow, or too complex to be practical.
Bridget connected this challenge to the broader vision behind the AAA’s AI Arbitrator: expanding access to dispute resolution for matters that often go unresolved because the traditional processes are too expensive or impractical.
In that sense, AI is not only changing how lawyers work. It is changing which disputes can be addressed at all.
The Stakes Are Bigger Than Efficiency
For criminal defense lawyers, the stakes of discovery are immediate and human. Missing a key document, video, or message can affect the outcome of a case and the course of a person’s life.
That urgency helps explain why criminal defense lawyers may be more willing to take a risk on new technology and adopt new tools when those tools may be able to materially improve their ability to represent clients. The promise is not simply reduced cost or faster review. It is better advocacy in cases where the consequences are profound.
The same shift is beginning to appear across legal practice. As AI changes the economics of legal work, lawyers may be able to take on matters that previously made little financial sense. And clients who were once priced out of meaningful representation may have access to new forms of support.
Final Thought
Episode 21 highlights a version of legal AI that often gets overlooked: its ability to help lawyers do work that is otherwise practically impossible under the weight of modern discovery and rising legal costs.
TrialKit’s story also reflects a broader shift in legal technology. Some of the most important companies are no longer being built only for elite firms and high-dollar matters. They are being built for the lawyers and clients who have historically had the fewest tools, the least leverage, and some of the hardest problems to solve.
That may be one of the most important promises of AI in law: not just making legal work faster but making more justice possible.
Transcript
Zach Abramowitz: So we're excited to be joined during Legal Week in New York. A few minutes from the Javits Center, where all the magic is taking place with Ariel Deshe, who's the founder of Trial Kit. Ariel. Thanks for joining me and Bridget today. We want to get into the story of Trial Kit. But I wanted to frame the conversation in advance. One of the reasons we find your product really interesting is not just because you're building with AI, the markets that you're building for are not necessarily previously addressed markets, but also this is a for-profit business that is growing very fast and doing very well.
And from Bridget's and my perspective really highlights a kind of shift that's going on in the market right now Certain groups that may not have had access to the previous generation of best technology now have way better products than what was available before. and potentially at price points that you couldn't even imagine a few years ago, and I was discussing this with Bridget beforehand, that kind of the theme here is not access to justice or what's often called A2J but the total addressable market of better justice. So I think, with that framing probably makes sense first for folks to understand a little bit more about who you are and where Trial Kit came from.
Ariel Deshe: Yeah, thanks so much for having me. Zach and Bridget. So, yeah, I'll start a little bit with my background which is criminal defense. That's what I went to law school I knew since undergrad I wanted to be a public defender. I wanted to represent people who historically struggled to get their voices heard. And I went to NYU law specifically because a lot of my personal heroes like Brian Stevenson, Randy Hertz and a few others were there. And that's what I spent most of my time. Studying and doing my internships and externships. So I was at the Federal Defenders for the Central District of California, then the public defenders in Colorado, and then the Equal Justice Initiative in Alabama representing clients in their post-conviction litigation on death row. Back then, we were still a small group, even though NYU has a pretty large public interest center, but everyone was trying to go to big law, so it was already a different track.
Ariel Deshe: I think that I was on. In terms of how I ended up starting a Trial Kit, it was a direct result of what I was experiencing in court, which was an increasingly large crisis. Zach, interrupt me if you want me to.
Zach Abramowitz: Well, no, I want you to keep going, but I do note that we have three NYU law grads here around the table, but two who sort of followed this similar path.
Bridget McCormack: Yeah. My path was the same. We talked about this. Yeah. I mean, when Zach first told me about you and Trial Kit, I was like, wait a minute. Do criminal defense lawyers buy software? I wasn't sure. So I want to hear the rest of the story, but I did the same. I went to law school for the same reason. I don't know if we talked about Randy Hertz, but I worked closely with Randy. it's really exciting to hear your story, but I think you should keep telling.
Zach Abramowitz: Well, but Bridget, just note that when you. graduated. You also worked here in New York.
Bridget McCormack: I worked as a public defender in New York.
Zach Abramowitz: So this is a very similar path you never went to big law. Like I'm, I think I'm the,
Bridget McCormack: I didn't, I skipped it.
Zach Abramowitz: I'm the only lucky one to have. lucky you got some fun. So talk a little bit about the crisis and ultimately, what triggered you leaving and starting Trial Kit.
Ariel Deshe: Sure. So I started out as a trial attorney in Arapahoe County and I was doing county court, which is misdemeanors. And I think if I remember at any given time I had about 150 cases, which is an astronomical amount. But if you work relentlessly hard and you have a team of attorneys around you who are doing the same and everyone is helping each other out, it's somehow manageable.
Ariel Deshe: And I felt I was doing a good job. I was getting good outcomes from my clients. They were still misdemeanors, but someone's life can easily be upended by a week or a month in jail. You know, you'll lose. Your apartment, you'll lose
Bridget McCormack: Your job, sometimes your family,
Ariel Deshe: Sometimes your family, stigma.
Bridget McCormack: Yes
Ariel Deshe: You know, once I moved into felony court where it was much more serious charges the amounts of discovery increased significantly. It's different agencies that are doing the investigation, but technology played a huge role in that. So when I started out, we were actually a paper file office, which wasn't that uncommon, which meant.
If your case is assigned to you and you're given to it in a stack of papers in an envelope, and you take your notes on it, over the course of two to three years, those same cases that were two to 300 pages started looking like two to 300 gigabytes, sometimes a terabyte. So things like social media played a huge role.
Law enforcement started doing preservation records requests. They get someone's entire online history. So imagine your entire Facebook, Instagram, every message, every chat thread every, every poke now gets downloaded and as part of discovery technology like Cellebrite, right? They extract all the contents of your phone.
Imagine what's on your phone. I, if you look right now, I probably have 50,000 photos, videos, WhatsApp threads, message threads. So to give you the extreme example, which was the reason I left, the last case that I took to trial when I was assigned to it had over a million pages of discovery. Had over a terabyte of digital evidence.
There were 10 cell phone extractions, 10 social media downloads. It would've taken a team of 30, probably five years to go through this material. It was me, one other attorney, one investigator, and we were set to go to trial, and my client was facing multiple life sentences, two counts of first degree murder.
He was innocent, which is one of the most horrifying realizations you can have when the stakes are that high. Worst. Yeah. It's literally devastating and your life freezes, and every second that you're awake is focused on doing what you can, and you want to be ringing the alarm bells. We need help on this case, not to mention you have 80 other felonies.
So after going to trial, in that case, we were forced to go to trial in the summer of 2022, where we beat the murder accounts. We beat multiple other accounts that carried life sentences. My client was convicted on lessers and when we pulled, not pulled, when we spoke to the jury afterwards, they told us that 10 wanted complete acquittal.
Two wanted a conviction. They split the baby in the deliberation rooms. They land on the charges they thought were not punishable by prison. They didn't know that judge in that jurisdiction. He gave my client the max on every count and ran it consecutively and sentenced him to 64 years in prison, which is what he's now serving for something I know definitively he didn't do.
It's the first and only jury trial I had where three jurors came to sentencing, including the foreperson, crying, begging the judge not to sentence my client to prison. So that's when I resigned and wanted to start something in order to give our side some degree of tools because it felt like the other side was getting increasingly sophisticated advanced weapons of the future, and we were basically fighting a war with sticks and stones.
Zach Abramowitz: So then at what point did you then decide. I think technology can potentially solve this. You resigned at what now looks, you know, in retrospect, feels like a very opportune moment in history because AI, you know, we always talk about it may be taking people's jobs.
Here's like a very clear case where AI is serving like a major, you know, public interest. At what point did you realize, okay, maybe we can solve this now?
Ariel Deshe: I wish I could lie and say, you know, I had that light bulb moment when I left. The truth is when I left, I just hit, you know, I think every person who does that line of work has at least some junctures in their career where it's so devastating that you need to at least pause and figure out,
Bridget McCormack: Can I keep doing this?
Ariel Deshe: Can I keep doing this? Or if I am, can I do it in a different way?
Bridget McCormack: Yeah.
Ariel Deshe: So when I resigned, my initial thinking was. I'll regroup and I'll figure out, maybe I go into private practice and do more pro bono. Maybe I don't know. But while litigating that case, without going into too many details I encountered or not encountered, there was a huge discovery violation. The government was hiding stuff from us, and part of what they were hiding was some kind of technology that they were using to monitor and surveil multiple communication streams across devices and streamline it. And we litigated this for months and it was very shady and, but I had screenshots of this technology and I kept thinking, one, this might be a huge deal on appeal.
And two, if this technology exists somewhere, government, federal or not, then it exists and maybe it can be repurposed or utilized for our side. And that's where the idea really came from.
Zach Abramowitz: One of the things that I think is really interesting about the company, and this is what Bridget mentioned before, is, in a previous world, you would've thought this has to be subsidized. Because if we're going to make this available to public defenders or lawyers who are defending folks on criminal charges. There's not really a business here. It's not lucrative. These aren't like the big Am Law 100 and 200 budgets, as you told me once, the only other vendors at some of the conferences that you go to are selling suits, right?
This is not like a group that's used a lot of technology in the past. Did you ever consider that and like how have you seen that transpire where you're now able to sell to? People who most of the market assumed didn't even have a tech budget.
Ariel Deshe: Yeah. So they don't, but that doesn't mean they won't buy things. I think I bounced between two ideas. The first is that yes, these are definitely offices and attorneys who have less money than big law, but the other thing that I knew being part of that community is that when you're. Doing what you can to get a better outcome from your client. And unlike in civil where you get hired with the expectation, you'll win 90% or more of the cases in criminal defence, you're gonna lose.
You're very accustomed to losing and you're very accustomed to taking risks to try to get a better outcome. So I didn't know if every attorney had my mindset, but I knew that enough did that. If you gave them something that could help their client. They will figure out a way to buy it. And I felt that the other component is that it's viewed as a very fragmented market because there's so many small offices and there's the PDs and there's the federal CJA, but it's also a very tight knit community.
And usually you are one attorney away from knowing that criminal defense attorney. And unlike in civil where the firms are battling each other. It's the opposite. This is a community that's helping each other. They go to CLEs, they teach each other new techniques, new ways to cross experts, new. It's a very,
Bridget McCormack: Yeah.
Ariel Deshe: You know, the amount of times I had attorneys I didn't know from other offices just call me to say, Hey, I'm going to be in this division. I see you're there a lot. Do you mind telling me what this judge is like? How are they on this issue at suppression? So. There was that community environment that I felt was actually very ripe for selling something, because if it's good, they'll be.
Bridget McCormack: They'll sell it for, you'll sell it to each other.
Ariel Deshe: They’ll sell for us. Exactly.
Bridget McCormack: It's so interesting. I mean, Zach, you probably know this, Paul Graham says like, the best founders are the ones that actually come across a problem that they can't solve, and then they quit what they're doing to go solve that problem.
Bridget McCormack: And that's your story, Ariel. So, tell us how your technology does help the people who are now your users, solve the problem you couldn't solve.
Ariel Deshe: Yeah, I really miss being in court and representing clients
Bridget McCormack: especially now, that you could have this technology to do better, right?
Ariel Deshe: better, right?
Ariel Deshe: Yes. Way more I fantasize about like, you know,
Bridget McCormack: Yeah.
Ariel Deshe: Even little things. You know when you're prepping for a cross, well, it's not little now, it seems little. I used to manually transcribe timestamp, every single line doing that across 16, 20 hours of footage. It takes forever. Yeah. Like literally two days of prep, just to write it out and or you have a best case scenario, paralegal doing that, but that's still a ton of time for them.
It's just this now it's a tool and we're not the only ones who do it. There's a lot of great transcription tools, but transcription, just being able to have it. Transcript of audio, like automatic. Yeah. The other aspect I think that is massive for our clients is the organization, you know. In criminal cases, the prosecution has obligations to hand over certain materials. They have no obligation to hand it over in any certain format or any way. They certainly don't have to give it to you organized, and they definitely don't have to highlight for you where the good facts for your client are.
So what they do is they over, they overdeliver. Sure you have these laws, they're annoying. You want us to give you everything. We'll give you literally everything, and they bury you with discovery. So it's overwhelming to even start a case. Now with our system, they have organization out the gates. They can find things rapidly.
You can use natural language and across media, across photos, videos, audio, even cell phone, extractions. I wanna find the communications between Bridget and Zach Pulls all of them. I want to find inconsistencies in their statements. It'll pull it'll cite to it. So you have everything there for you. It could save hundreds of hours on a large case, just out the gates.
Zach Abramowitz: Yeah. And what's interesting and this isn't just the AI tools for law. I think this is a lot of people's frame for AI to let me automate the work that I was already doing before. And what's interesting about Trial Kit is that you're not really doing that. What you're saying is, I literally like I could not do this before. This is not something that is like, oh, I used to, do it like this, and now I have a faster way. It was, the job was impossible. Now the job becomes possible.
Ariel Deshe: Yeah. I would. Adjust that just slightly. because you know, I think criminal defense attorneys are some of the hardest working and diligent, and they sometimes will do the impossible. They'll get through quantities of materials that are astronomical. but that always will have to come at expense. Especially if you're working at the public defender's office, you can't do that in every case. Right. so you have to triage. Everyone knows it, whether it's said or out loud or not, but I felt, at least personally, it was becoming increasingly impossible for me to be consistently effective.
To the degree I, maybe not to the standard, but to my standard, which was I needed to be able to review every single piece of discovery. I could not let a client take a plea before I'd gone into that point. I could not let a client waive the right to a preliminary hearing, and I certainly couldn't go to trial. That becomes a nearly. Or actually impossible when you have cases that are a terabyte, right? I've now seen through trial cases that are five to 10 terabytes. That is such an insane amount of data that there is no person on earth who can go through that or even a team. So to that point, it does make it possible to get through quantities of materials that you just said simply couldn't in any reasonable amount of time.
Zach Abramowitz: What do you see as the other benefits to selling a product directly to attorneys? Because I think this is another one of the things that's different, and I think I've talked about this with Scott Stevenson from Spellbook also, who's not typically selling to bigger firms. We might be selling to a chief innovation officer who's buying on behalf of attorneys.
Zach Abramowitz: Yep. What are the benefits from a product and business standpoint? Of selling direct to your user.
Ariel Deshe: Yeah. Zach, I hadn't thought of it until you actually brought it up a few weeks ago, and it clicked in my head and you brought up a great point. I, it was just because I had never sold to a CIO, I'd only sold it. This was just how it played out. But out the gates from our very first customer until now, the buyer and the user are the same. They gave us real time feedback. Good and bad.
Bridget McCormack: Yeah.
Ariel Deshe: They'll be like, Hey, this thing isn't working. Or they also suggest ideas. You know what would be really great if it could do A, B, C, D.
And they also share the victories when it works, you know, they get excited and it motivates the team. But we have these rapid feedback loops, so we collect all of their feedback. We put it into Jira. And once a month we go through it and we have our own kind of rating system based on the effort estimation. The impact, the reach, and that becomes our product roadmap.
Zach Abramowitz: Right. And Bridget, you can speak to this a little bit because at, you know, in building The AI Arbitrator at the AAA, working very closely with arbitrators.
Bridget McCormack: and advocates who do construction arbitration, it was the best way to get immediate feedback, but you're just continuing to get it as you roll it out.
Bridget McCormack: Yeah. That's pretty cool.
Ariel Deshe: Yeah. And attorneys are not shy to,
Bridget McCormack: That's right.
Ariel Deshe: To say what they want to say,
Bridget McCormack: especially criminal defense attorneys actually.
Ariel Deshe: Yeah, no filters.
Bridget McCormack: You know, I naively said when I first met you, I can't believe criminal defense lawyers can buy technology.
Bridget McCormack: But I think that was a naive take because I agree with you first of all that there's certain people that do that work and they all want to do it, right? So they are going to stretch to get A service that's going to make their work better. But obviously it also helps them triage at the front end and you can figure out is this a case that's probably going to resolve with an agreement of some kind?
Bridget McCormack: Or is this one like, oh God, this person might well, literally be factually innocent. We're going to put our time and energy in this, and that triage at the front end makes you significantly more efficient. So the ROI actually does make sense. That was a naive take on my part.
Ariel Deshe: no, it's not just on your part. I was naive about it too. And some of them view it from a business perspective, which is, yeah. Oh my God. We can bring on, I don't know, whatever the calculation is, 10 more clients because we're going to be able to get through this material faster. And even if your retainer is 10K or 20K. And this can save you four hours a case.
Ariel Deshe: It's a no brainer. So from a business perspective, I realized very quickly that it makes sense for them too.
Bridget McCormack: Yeah.
Zach Abramowitz: And Bridget, you know, with the AI arbitrator, you know, I know that right now the use case is intentionally very limited to a subset. Super narrow to a subset of like very narrow cases.
Zach Abramowitz: Yeah. You know, documents only construction disputes. But I know, from speaking with you, and you've talked about this on the podcast, that your vision ultimately is sort of similar, to bring dispute resolution to a group of people who never even thought, oh wait a second. Like, you mean there's a way to deal with that dispute? Yeah. There's a way to end it.
Bridget McCormack: Yeah, I mean, in criminal defense, people get lawyers because the government has to provide them. But there's an enormous category of civil disputes that lots of parties can never afford lawyers, even disputes where there's no question about liability. Like there's even injury cases. If the damages, I’m making up the number, it probably is higher now. It used to be like 75K or less. A PI firm couldn't make that work financially to take that case and file it. 75K to a lot of people is like the difference between staying in their house or not, or you know, defaulting
Ariel Deshe: on their debts or
Bridget McCormack: Exactly right.
Bridget McCormack: It's a game changer and the fact that the market just leaves those people legally naked is insane. And you know, one answer is legal information that allows them to figure it out on their own. And others like making dispute resolution just more available and easier for lots of people.
Bridget McCormack: So that's what Zach means. I think eventually if we get it right and people trust it, that you should be able to resolve disputes that you'll never be able to, you know, convince a lawyer to help you with. and you might just, might not need to. Right,
Zach Abramowitz: right. So it's not only about a case that's brought to arbitration where it's, you know, Skadden against Cava.
Bridget McCormack: There's always going to be a lot of those
Zach Abramowitz: Yeah. There's always going to be a lot of those. But once you make the process so fast, you know, so simple and straightforward, then you start going downstream and you say like, okay, who else can use this? Who didn't have access really to the old tools, which might have been the courts, which as you said are very expensive.
Yeah. You know, even dispute resolution, while it's less expensive than the courts, it's also not inexpensive, right? This is now this other path, which in some respects, it's similar, it's a better product and a better price point for people who've never really had that option. As you're sitting here in legal week. You know, you don't sell, you didn't start this company to sell into, you know, the biggest of law firms. Are you seeing that it's only the biggest of law firms that are still coming to legal week and or are you seeing attorneys who kind of fall outside that category who are now also interested in AI, who are showing up. What's your experience been after being here for a couple of days?
Ariel Deshe: Yeah. If I can real quick, I just want to comment. I think Bridget, what you're touching on is amazing because you know, criminal defense might be where the pain is felt most acutely. because you're dealing with
Bridget McCormack: life and death.
Ariel Deshe: Life and death. But the adjacent pool is exactly that. Where, you know, we call it the collateral consequences of conviction. Right. But all my clients were dealing with different variations. So justice
Bridget McCormack: problems.
Ariel Deshe: Yeah.
Bridget McCormack: Yeah.
Ariel Deshe: And they had no access to representation. because it's too expensive. and I think what you just described is democratizing access to the justice system, to enforce your rights to protect them. Even just a contract dispute or, housing or if your business gets sued and you don't have the resources to go through the discovery process,
Bridget McCormack: you can put a business under.
Bridget McCormack: Every small and medium business in this country goes legally naked. And one dispute can put them under.
Ariel Deshe: Exactly.
Bridget McCormack: Makes no sense.
Ariel Deshe: You know, the 75 grand should be more than enough reason for an attorney to take on the case, but I understand the mechanics business wise make it so it's not possible unless you find technology's use in order to make it affordable and profitable for whoever's taking it. So I think that's amazing.
Zach Abramowitz: Just as a quick reflection before you get to the big law points, we're going to look back at the period before AI was able to help with a better justice system. We're going to look back at this, as bloodletting.
Zach Abramowitz: We're going to look back and be like, do you remember we
Bridget McCormack: did what?
Zach Abramowitz: Yeah. There was a period in time where if that happened to you, there just wasn't an answer. You might have had to be evicted or lose your job or
Bridget McCormack: Give up your business. You put your entire like life savings into
Zach Abramowitz: Yeah. We're going to look back at this and wonder how we possibly function now on those bright notes. Back to the big law versus the small solos. Who are you seeing at Legal Week?
Ariel Deshe: I might not be the best person to ask this because Zach, as you know I only know the names of a handful of big law firms. I am a little bit ignorant in that field, so I'll be able to look at our leads list after and look them up and then tell you. Yeah. But so far it has seemed to be big law firms. I will say.
But I, you know, there's 5,000 people here. I will say there's a lot of vendors, like a crazy amount. When I was looking at the list, I think over a thousand companies, which is exciting and also intimidating just in terms of the market's getting saturated, but it's also means people are buying different things and they're not any more relegated to one of three or one of five
Bridget McCormack: Yeah.
Ariel Deshe: Companies for each segment.
Bridget McCormack: Yeah.
Ariel Deshe: So I think that's a good thing.
Zach Abramowitz: Have you seen lawyers change their posture towards AI and some of the legal AI tools or the use cases, since you've gotten started?
Ariel Deshe: Well, certainly in the criminal space, but I think more broadly, about a year and a half ago, two years ago, the conversations all centered around data security, hallucinations.
Bridget McCormack: Yeah.
Ariel Deshe: And all of the risks of using AI. The most recent conference I went to. It was fascinating because almost every presenter would have the audience raise your hands if you're using some form of AI in your practice. It would be like half, and they'd say, I'm not here to promote any specific platform. I use five different ones for different aspects of my business.
But if you don't start using AI, you're going to be left in the dust. You have to use it, everyone else is using it. You're going to become obsolete if you don't incorporate some technological capabilities into your practice. Now that doesn't mean you have to dump everything into ChatGPT, but start incorporating it where you can. And that's a wild shift in market sentiment. Yeah. There was a task force at one of
Bridget McCormack: there's always a task force.
Ariel Deshe: There's always a committee
Bridget McCormack: There's always a report and like please, with the reports, I mean, can we just do things? Can we just do things
Ariel Deshe: Task force? Yeah. So. As far as legal week, I've not been here before, but I will say that at least from our humble kind of lane of our company a year ago, with the exception of a few out of the box thinkers, some of whom you know, they, I don't think they would've engaged in a serious conversation. And this week, we've had senior representatives from some of the top law firms sit down with us for an hour.
Watching the technology and talking out loud how they could incorporate it into their firm. That's a very different mindset from a year ago.
Zach Abramowitz: We were talking yesterday, Bridget, about the narrative around AI backlash and the idea that AI is becoming less popular. What do you think
Bridget McCormack: It's fake. You think it's fake?
Zach Abramowitz: So I have my suspicions of why I think it's fake or contrived. Yeah. Or put on. But I'm aware of this narrative. Yeah. I want to give you the last word, but as we conclude this conversation, I do hope that. Because I think there are some dangers in AI, and I do think that AI could lead not just to job displacement, but in some cases irresponsible and effective job displacement.
I think we're going to use AI for things that really we should be using humans for. and there's going to be some mess up. But I do hope that people also bake in the nuance about. AI for good, right? Whether you know, it’s the AI Arbitrator or whether it's Trial Kit, there are going to be places where AI is going to change things so fundamentally for the better that we're going to look back and say, like I said before, how did we even operate beforehand. So again, I just hope that angle gets captured because we're not talking about just enriching, you know, the, you know, the haves against the have nots.
This is specifically a case where a company can grow and be a really successful business, but ultimately be a business that does well by doing good.
Bridget McCormack: It makes the world a better place. Yeah, I mean the criminal defense is in some ways like such a great example because, you know, we know a little bit about the rate and the cause of wrongful convictions. We know it from the DNA database and it's somewhere between very conservatively bet. Because this is only DNA and a lot goes wrong in cases where there's no biological evidence to test. It's somewhere between three and 5%.
If you think of the criminal justice system like throwing free throws, you're doing well. But if you think of it like landing planes, why would you accept that? And so the idea that we can finally build technology that could bring that to zero is so exciting and really excited about what you're up to. Ariel,
Ariel Deshe: thanks so much, Bridget. I love that analogy. Yeah. Three to 5% across two to 3 million people. Right? That's 150,000 people if I did the math right. It's a lot.
Zach Abramowitz: It's a lot of plane crashes.
Ariel Deshe: Yes
Bridget McCormack: a lot of crashes
Ariel Deshe: because 15,000, that's just the DNA, there's everyone else.
Bridget McCormack: Exactly,
Ariel Deshe: which I would say is maybe higher.
Bridget McCormack: I think, yes
Zach Abramowitz: Ariel, thank you so much for sitting down with us
Ariel Deshe: My pleasure. We really appreciate it. Thank you both.
Zach Abramowitz: Thanks for tuning into today's episode of the Triple AI Podcast. Please consider leaving us a rating and review on your favorite podcasting platform, and don't forget to follow and subscribe so that you never miss an episode.