WITH the rapid advancements in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI), this era is often termed “The Golden Era of AI”.
Artificial Intelligence has started to intermingle with every field of life in one way or another.
Critics fear AI will soon replace humans in most of the workplaces.
However, along with its merits, AI also poses some complexities which are harder to unravel.
In this framework, the concept of an AI judge is currently floating around the legal field, creating an atmosphere of skepticism towards Artificial Intelligence.
In 2023, Muhammad Amir Munir (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Phalia, Punjab at that time) tested the dynamics of an AI Chatbot (Chat GPT 4) to see how it can help the justice system to pass crisp and smart judicial orders and judgments in accordance with the law based on support and assistance of artificial intelligence.
The Honourable Judge found the answers pretty impressive as well as based on the correct implementation of the settled law in Pakistan.
A copy of the order was sent to the Lahore High Court and Justice Commission of Pakistan to consider it a law reform proposal.
The verdict of AI judges will be based upon the statutes provided to it, along with the legal precedents set by human judges.
It is pertinent to mention that this concept will be designed to be impartial at all costs.
However, the verdict given by AI judges could be based upon the precedent, which itself is controversial or set by a biased human judge.
Yet, AI judges are expected to be free from any bias or prejudice by all means, which is a difficult concept to grasp, not to mention the fear of getting hacked.
Furthermore, AI may struggle to provide accurate verdicts in an unprecedented or highly complex case that requires a novel interpretation of the law.
The right to appeal is a fundamental aspect of the judicial system, providing a mechanism for the review and correction of legal decisions.
When each AI judge is provided with the same set of legal information in order to give a verdict, the right to appeal appears to be abolished, as the superior AI judge, with the same set of legal knowledge and the same set of precedents, will apply the jurisprudence in the same manner.
In this way, the verdict of a lower AI judge will never be overturned by a superior AI judge, which will strictly threaten the justice system.
Stepping into the realistic world, an AI judge is a machine that could potentially make errors, while also facing risks related to cybersecurity, software bugs, and data breaches.
The modern jurisprudence is yet to resolve the complexities posed by the advancements in the field of AI.
But the foremost issue emerges as to who will be responsible for the wrongdoing or injustice done by an AI judge?
Is artificial intelligence competent enough to become the judges and juries of our society?
Will AI judges be able to gain the public’s trust?
—The writer is Law Student at University of the Punjab. (ghaneemwarraich@gmail.com)
