“Legal decisions, areas of application of human judgment
Despite the advantages such as AI and expanded judicial accessibility,
“Human judges will exist for a long time.”
Despite the advantages such as AI and expanded judicial accessibility,
“Human judges will exist for a long time.”
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (pictured) said, “Artificial intelligence (AI) brings mixed blessings to the legal profession,” and emphasized the need for “caution” and “humility” when using AI. Although AI has the advantage of increasing access to justice for the common people and reducing time and cost, there are significant concerns such as controversy over content authenticity and lack of personal information protection, and there is also a clear role that only human judges can play. Accordingly, even if the use of AI spreads, it is expected that humans will be in charge of the ruling field.
Chief Justice Roberts pointed out the ambivalence of AI use in the 2023 annual year-end Supreme Court report released on December 31 last year. He acknowledged that AI has the potential to increase access to justice for poor litigants and help courts resolve cases faster and cheaper. He predicts that he will be able to easily answer questions about where and how to find complex legal-related documents, and will have a positive effect on various types of legal research.
At the same time, he was concerned that controversy over the authenticity of AI-generated content would continue. Michael Cohen, who was former President Donald Trump’s closest confidant but broke up with him due to various lawsuits, recently submitted to the court a citation of a precedent made with Google’s AI chatbot ‘Bard’, but it was confirmed to be a fake precedent, and the whole truth was eventually revealed. Like this, there are a series of cases where some lawyers use AI to cite non-existent precedents.
Because of this, a federal appeals court in New Orleans, Louisiana, recently established rules regulating the use of generative AI such as ‘ChatGPT’. The rule requires lawyers to prove that they did not rely on AI to draft legal documents and that the AI-generated text was reviewed by humans for accuracy.
In addition, Chief Justice Roberts said, “Legal decisions often involve ‘gray areas’ that require the application of human judgment,” and that only judges can evaluate the truth of a defendant’s statements when sentencing. It is argued that only a human judge can detect subtle differences in the defendant’s trembling hands and voice, changes in intonation and facial expression, drops of sweat, momentary hesitation, and eye contact. They also raised concerns that the increased use of AI could lead to increased privacy violations and the risk of dehumanizing the law.
Source: Donga
Mark Jones is a world traveler and journalist for News Rebeat. With a curious mind and a love of adventure, Mark brings a unique perspective to the latest global events and provides in-depth and thought-provoking coverage of the world at large.