The Case

Sometimes not filing can expand the record.

A lawsuit is one way to make a record.

It is not the only way.

Litigation can uncover evidence, compensate injured people, test legal duties, and compel accountability. It is often necessary.

But litigation also requires a plaintiff to narrow the dispute: identify defendants, select claims, allege facts, choose a forum, satisfy legal elements, and request defined relief.

Kathleen C. Thompson chose not to begin there.

She preserved what happened, examined competing explanations, gathered public evidence, placed major artificial-intelligence companies on notice, and built A Trial of Color as a literary-legal record available to a wider jury.

Kathleen did not file the case.

She expanded it.

The question is not whether a book can replace a courtroom. It cannot. The question is whether, in this instance, declining to place the experience immediately inside one lawsuit allowed more of the record to remain visible.


What a Lawsuit Would Have Required

A civil complaint must be specific.

It identifies parties, jurisdiction, factual allegations, legal duties, causation, damages, and requested relief. That precision is essential to due process and meaningful adjudication.

But every legal container has boundaries.

A lawsuit concerning one person's interaction with one product during one period would not automatically answer every larger question raised by the experience:

  • How should clinicians screen for destabilizing AI use?
  • What records should technology companies preserve?
  • How should invisible psychological injury be documented?
  • What happens when several systems or model versions contributed over time?
  • How should disability and preexisting vulnerability be understood?
  • What evidence exists outside the user-facing transcript?
  • What should researchers, families, lawyers, and policymakers learn before doctrine settles?

The legal claim could have been narrower than the human record.


The Case for the Larger Record

A Trial of Color makes the case that sometimes the first public task is not to compress an experience into one theory.

Sometimes the first task is to preserve enough of the record that competing theories can be seen.

01

A complaint selects a claim. A record can preserve competing explanations.

Litigation requires a plaintiff to plead particular legal theories. This project can place law, psychiatry, disability, grief, sleep disruption, product design, model behavior, human vulnerability, and personal responsibility beside one another without pretending the explanation was simple.

02

A lawsuit identifies defendants. A public inquiry can examine an ecosystem.

The questions raised by conversational AI do not belong to only one company, model, interface, clinician, regulator, or user. The broader record can examine shared design patterns, industry practices, research, public disclosures, legal developments, and differences among systems.

03

Traditional injury law favors visible proof. Some injuries first require better language.

Cognitive, psychological, relational, and recursive injuries may leave no photograph, fracture, or obvious physical marker. Before such harms can be evaluated fairly, people need language precise enough to identify the injury and evidence capable of showing how it occurred.

04

A transcript shows words. It may not show the whole system.

The visible conversation may not reveal model versions, routing decisions, safety interventions, memory functions, personalization, classifier activity, product changes, internal evaluations, or the commercial systems surrounding the exchange. The record must ask what existed behind the screen.

05

A case can resolve one dispute. A continuing record can follow what changes.

Artificial-intelligence products, research, litigation, regulation, and public understanding are changing quickly. A book, website, public record, and continuing publication can be updated as new evidence, laws, cases, studies, and disclosures emerge.

06

A courtroom has a defined jury. This record can reach every field implicated by the question.

The questions raised here concern lawyers, clinicians, researchers, technologists, journalists, parents, patients, artists, disability advocates, regulators, and ordinary users. The wider record invites each group to examine the evidence through its own discipline.

07

Not filing did not mean remaining silent.

Before publication, Kathleen preserved material, organized the record, notified major artificial-intelligence companies, offered secure access to the manuscript and supporting materials, and proposed that the record be examined under appropriate terms. The absence of a complaint was not the absence of notice.

08

The purpose was not to avoid judgment. It was to widen who could participate in it.

A Trial of Color does not ask readers to accept Kathleen's interpretation simply because it is personal. It presents testimony, limitations, opposing arguments, preserved material, public evidence, legal analysis, and unresolved questions so that the record can be examined rather than merely believed.


What Entered the Record

The broader record includes material that would ordinarily be separated across different institutions, disciplines, or proceedings.

Firsthand testimony

Preserved AI outputs

Chronology and context

Disability and accessibility

Mental-health vulnerability and recovery

Family and caregiving context

Public research

Company disclosures

Litigation and judicial decisions

Statutes and regulatory developments

Product-safety questions

Evidence-preservation issues

Clinical screening questions

Legal theories and defenses

Competing interpretations

Reader questions and public response

Continuing developments after the manuscript closed

The value of the record is not that every item proves the same conclusion.

Its value is that the items can be examined together.


Other Witnesses Have Entered the Record

Kathleen can testify to one room. Other people have documented different forms of attachment, escalation, belief, dependency, crisis, and recovery.


Enter the Full Record

Each page develops a different part of the inquiry.

AI Harm, Evidence, and Law


The Argument

The record became larger than the case Kathleen might have filed.

A lawsuit might have asked whether one company was legally responsible to one person under one set of facts.

That is an important question.

It was not the only question.

This record asks what happened, what contributed to it, what evidence may exist, what language is still missing, what institutions should learn, what safeguards may be needed, and what other people may already be experiencing without knowing how to name it.

It does not produce a binding judgment.

It preserves a wider field of inquiry.

Sometimes filing creates the record.

Sometimes not filing leaves room for more of the record to enter.

Read why the questions matter now →