Artificial justice: would robots make good judges?

A few months ago, I participated in
a debate contest in school, and we discussed whether
Artificial Intelligence use is beneficial for human future. Artificial intelligence is a type
of computer technology which is concerned with making
machines work in an intelligent way, similar to the way that
the human mind works. So, I belonged to the team
which opposes AI use. Actually, I wanted to be in the pro team Because for what reasons
do we oppose AI use? I mean, AI exists to help us, right? But there were too many people
who wanted to be in the pro team And I had no choice but
to be in the opposing team. So our team searched information
about side effects of AI. And actually, we stayed up
all night doing the research because our teacher only gave us
one day to prepare for the debates. I usually think every experience
is worth it, but not this time. Anyway, in the first debate,
we argued that AI takes away human jobs, and finally, it would dominate human. And the other team said AI
is perfect in all way and the world will develop
if human keeps using it. We fought really hard
and finally were in the third place. After the debate, one
of the facts I learned is that many jobs which are done by humans
are now being done by AI. Suppose you have a choice. You can either ask your brother
to help you with your math homework — by the way, you’re not sure
how good at math he is — or you can ask a super robot. Who will you choose? Please raise your hand. Your brother? Super robot? Thank you. Now you can lower your hands, Like all of you, many people
choose super robot for work due to its effectiveness and accuracy. However, there are many fields in human
jobs which require subjective decisions and the law section is a great case. Since I was little, I’ve heard a lot of
cases through my father who is a judge. And he told me that many judges
are subjective while working whether they intend to be or not. For example, Judge A says a defendant
should be in jail for two years while Judge B says one year is enough And this is because all judges think
differently about the same case. And in this respect, humans tend
to be more subjective while AI is objective in doing work. We can easily see computers doing
objective tasks but now AI is allowing certain fields
to automate subjective tasks as well, including the justice system. Have you ever heard of ROSS Intelligence? ROSS Intelligence is first AI lawyer,
which collects and analyzes leading cases. Even though some people say
that lawyers can be replaced by AI, lawyers are concerned
about the extension of AI use in a point that it is unable
to understand individual cases. Similarly, according to
a research team in Oxford, judge as a job is at risk
of disappearing by advent of AI. As Artificial Intelligence is quickly
spreading all over the world, robot judge, which is able
to reflect about hundreds of cases is likely to be developed
in the near future. Let me give you an example. You are impoverished and living with your
daughter who is only two years old. One day, she is crying
because she’s hungry, but you find no money in your pocket. So you determine to go to a market
and steal some milk powder. You get caught and you’re arrested
and put on trial with an AI judge who sentences you exactly the same way
it sentences a person who stole a TV. Of course I might give you
an extreme example, but this kind of situation can actually
happen considering the properties of AI. Unfortunately, we can’t prevent this AI
from being introduced into our world because the extension
of AI use is like a general trend. So we should find a way to take advantage
of AI in more effective ways. In the future, there are several ways that
AI might be used in legal judgments. In the current system, both lawyers
and judges are human. One possible option for the future is
that a defendant might be able to choose whether they want an AI judgment
or a human judgment. First is when defendant want themselves
to be judged by only human judgement 100%. In this case, a judge can listen
to the argument of the accused and understand the individual cases. If the accused wants a ruling
that allows for subjectivity, he or she may prefer
a 100% human judge with no AI. But allowing for human subjectivity
also leaves room for human prejudice. Throughout history,
many cases have been affected by the prejudice of humans
making legal decisions, like all-white juries in cases
against African-American defendants in the Civil Rights era
in the United States. Well, this circumstance
actually happens these days because of the subjectivity of judgment. In these cases, a ruling from AI may be
fairer because it might be more objective. Through the system which delivers
automatically by considering the information
and evidence, they would be likely to be sentenced without being swayed
by judge’s prejudice. I think judge is the very job
with coexistence of AI and human because it needs both subjectivity
and objectivity. Not only for judge,
but also for other jobs, we should not bring in AI unadvisedly
and let it dominate human jobs. AI can benefit our world. But we should not forget it
is like a double-edged sword and there should be detailed
restrictions to use it effectively. Thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *