by Dr. Lance B. Eliot
For a free podcast of this article, visit this link https://ai-law.libsyn.com/website or find our AI & Law podcast series on Spotify, iTunes, iHeartRadio, plus on other audio services. For the latest trends about AI & Law, visit our website www.ai-law.legal
Key briefing points about this article:
- AI judges potentially will inevitably arise at your local neighborhood courthouse
- They might not be the robo-judges of sci-fi, but will nonetheless provide judging
- To corral what might be an AI overreach there is the idea that human judges will prevail
- All AI legal judgments will need to be reviewed and approved (or not) by a human judge
- This seems sensible but regrettably has some issues to be dealt with
Society seems to have a great deal of fascination with the possibility of having robo-judges. This would seemingly consist of AI systems that are empowered to serve in a judicial capacity as a judge.
On the surface, the idea of having AI systems in this quite regal and vital role seems absurd. How dare we use machines to oversee and assess humans that are seeking redress in our courts? Only human judges ought to sit in the crucial position of making judgments about other humans.
Well, the retort goes, you have to admit that human judges have a lot of inherent biases and human behavioral drawbacks. We might be better off using some dispassionate AI system that will be more matter of fact, for which the AI would purely and logically leverage the law and render judgments utterly free of human whim.
Hold your horses, the counterargument replies, we already know that AI systems can contain various biases, including racial biases, gender biases, and the like. Furthermore, the arcane mathematics underlying some of the AI systems is murky and does not lend itself to proffering a logical basis for why a judgment has been generated in the fashion that it has. We could frighteningly and woefully become subject to AI computational pattern matching that is grossly unfair and fully inexplicable.