> IANAL, but, my argument here is that the defendant is proceeding pro se (representing themselves), and utilizing a _tool_ to assist in researching their defense.

Nope. From the article:

> Here's how it was supposed to work: The person challenging a speeding ticket would wear smart glasses that both record court proceedings and dictate responses into the defendant's ear from a small speaker. The system was powered by a few leading AI text generators, including ChatGPT and DaVinci.

That's not assisting the defendant in their research. The AI is doing the research and presenting it to the defendant, during their trial when they won't have adequate time to review it. The defendant's role will just be to mindlessly repeat what the AI says.