What would it be like if AI were to make judgments as judges in the future? While there is a rather negative attitude towards this in Germany and Europe, Brazil will soon be using artificial intelligence in the judiciary. But what are the consequences? A commentary analysis.
The fact that a country is relying on AI to make court decisions in the future seems irritating at first glance. But that is exactly what has happened in Brazil, where the use of AI in the justice system was recently decided.
AI as a judge: Brazil wants to use artificial intelligence from OpenAI
The Brazilian government has OpenAI commissioned, to use artificial intelligence to analyze court proceedings in order to reduce the costs of proceedings and make the justice system as a whole more efficient. The use of AI, which is provided via Microsoft’s Azure platform, is intended to identify trends and potential problems at an early stage.
This is intended to help reduce the rising costs of the justice system, which are estimated to be around $19 billion by 2024. AI will support the work of judicial employees, but there are no plans to replace the employees’ tasks with AI. In particular, all decisions should continue to be made by people.
Consequences for Brazil’s justice system
Brazil’s decision to use OpenAI to optimize court proceedings is undoubtedly an exciting and bold step towards greater digitalization. But what consequences can – and will – result from this?
The advantages: transparency, competence and cost reduction
One benefit of the decision is the potential to promote transparency and uniformity in the Brazilian justice system. Because you have to be aware that at the end of the day, court decisions are made by people. And people are consciously or unconsciously exposed to influences that influence their decisions.
AI-powered analysis of court cases could better uncover and address inequities and irregularities in sentencing. This could increase citizens’ trust in the justice system as decisions are based on clear, data-based analysis and leave less room for subjective interpretation.
Another argument in favor of the Brazilian government’s decision is the possibility that the introduction of AI will lead to further training and an increase in the skills of judicial employees. By not only learning to use advanced technologies, but also integrating them and their analyzes into their daily work, employees could acquire valuable knowledge regarding the use of digital tools on the one hand and strengthening their legal skills on the other.
In the long term, this could improve the adaptability and competence of the entire justice system. Additionally, AI could improve access to legal assistance in rural and remote areas. In many parts of Brazil, resources and legal expertise are limited.
An AI-powered justice system could provide standardized and high-quality legal assistance that was previously only available in urban centers. Finally, there are many other arguments in favor of the Brazilian government’s decision, such as possible cost savings, which are also cited by the government.
The disadvantages: responsibility and dependence
However, it is important to me to also explain the concerns about this decision and the reasons for it. Because it cannot be ruled out that more and more AI will be used to make administration work more efficient. To be prepared, there should be an understanding of the concerns.
A particularly important point is the question of responsibility and liability. If decisions suggested by an AI lead to incorrect judgments, the question arises as to who is ultimately responsible. The legal and ethical resolution of such cases could prove extremely complex.
Another risk is the possible monopolization of legal expertise by large technology companies. The Brazilian judiciary’s heavy reliance on OpenAI and Microsoft’s technologies could create a dependency that allows these companies to dictate their terms and prices. In the long term, this could undermine the sovereignty of the Brazilian justice system – and, in the event of imitation, that of other countries.
Culture and language of language models
The cultural and linguistic adaptation of AI also plays a role, which should not be underestimated. Most AI models, including those developed by OpenAI, are based on data collected predominantly in English and in a specific cultural context.
Adapting these models to the specific needs and nuances of the Brazilian legal system may pose challenges that are not fully understood and therefore not immediately apparent. This is especially true as other countries introduce AI support.
The topic of text incest can play a role with regard to court rulings through AI. In summary, the introduction of OpenAI in the Brazilian justice system offers many potential benefits, but also presents non-negligible risks and challenges.
Careful consideration and continuous monitoring of this measure is therefore essential to ensure that it actually leads to improvements in efficiency and fairness in the justice system, without jeopardizing the integrity and sovereignty of the system.
AI as a judge: final classification
Brazil’s decision to use artificial intelligence in the justice system is an exciting and groundbreaking step towards digitalization and increased efficiency. Despite, in my view, legitimate concerns about liability, monopolization and cultural adaptation, the project also shows the enormous potential of technological innovations to overcome complex challenges.
The possible promotion of transparency and uniformity in the justice system as well as the opportunity for further training and expansion of the skills of employees in the justice system are convincing advantages.
At the same time, the risks of excessive dependence on large technology companies and the complex liability issues in the event of wrongful judgments must also be taken seriously. To meet these challenges, a clear regulatory framework is required that ensures transparency and ethical standards.
In addition, a diversified system should be sought in which no single provider is responsible for the technologies. This can be supported, for example, by promoting local technology companies and open source solutions.
I think that in the future we need to have a broad discussion about how similar technologies can be introduced in other countries – the discussion does not yet have to be about “must” but about “can”. The specific needs and legal framework of the respective country should be taken into account.
A society must also be ready to accept AI in everyday life. Whether this is the case in Germany still needs to be clarified, I am currently not sure. In order to achieve this state, comprehensive information and education is required to increase trust in these technologies and equip the population with the necessary digital skills.
In Germany, for example, where there is great skepticism about AI, especially in the judiciary, it would be important to carry out pilot projects and communicate their results transparently. Only through responsible and transparent use can the integration of AI into the justice system be successful and to the benefit of society as a whole.
Also interesting:
- Copyright and AI: Japan is pushing ahead with manga
- Deepfakes: Bavaria demands a penalty of up to 5 years in prison
- Simple logic question makes AI desperate – can you answer it?
- Start-up develops living computer from human brain cells
The article AI as a judge: The advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence in the judiciary by Carsten Lexa first appeared on BASIC thinking. Follow us too Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.