AI’s hit the courts, folks, and it’s causing quite a stir. Imagine this: you’re gearing up for 2024, and all the tech wizards (and wizards of law) can’t stop yapping about how AI’s like a newfangled whiz-bang gizmo in the justice system. Some folks think it’s the salvation the world needs, others are clutching their pearls like AI’s gonna take over and toss humanity into the scrap heap. Personally, I’d say AI’s like one particularly clever raccoon that’s raided my garbage; it could be helpful or a downright nuisance depending on how you handle it.
Judges and lawyers are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. They’re wondering how to harness AI without letting it bamboozle them. God knows the industry’s been reacting like a cat in a room full of rocking chairs. Schools tweaked their honor codes because students were using AI to crank out essays, and some judges even put standing orders on AI-assisted briefing. Lawyers are over there scratching their heads, trying to figure out if AI can be their new secret weapon for brainstorming legal strategies.
Then you’ve got the retired judge, Paul W. Grimm; AI aficionado, Maura R. Grossman; and policy professor Cary Coglianese — chatty bunch, kicking around some thoughts on AI. On the one hand, they’re like kids in a candy store, excited about AI’s many potential positives. But they also warn that things could go sideways faster than my Uncle Bob after a few too many drinks. AI can bring biased data, misinformation, deepfakes, and privacy issues — the full monty of digital dystopia.
Meanwhile, AI’s crawling into everything, from helping write legal briefs to assisting in decision-making. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. AI’s not at the point where it can convincingly play judge, jury, and executioner without a human somewhere in the loop. AI’s got potential, sure, but it’s a hot-mess express if things go wrong.
So, how about uses like electronic discovery and online adjudication? Well, they’re peachy if done right. Could cut down on court backlogs and make justice more accessible. But self-represented litigants might use AI for spamming courts with nonsense, turning the judiciary into a circus.
Judge Grimm, Grossman, and Coglianese all agree that AI shouldn’t replace humans — it’s meant to assist, not supplant. Hell, just look at the AI-powered ChatGPT, which went from scoring a dismal 10th percentile on the bar exam to 90th in just a few clicks. But remember, the bar’s just an exam; real-life lawyering’s another ball game entirely. AI’s fine for routine paperwork, but for those one-of-a-kind legal judgments — leave that quirky nuance to human brains.
And let’s not forget the AI risk-assessment tool that’s ruffling feathers like an overstuffed turkey on Thanksgiving. It predicts the risk of recidivism, but we can’t see all its inner workings. Like biting into a piece of fruit and not knowing if there’s a worm hidden inside.
For judges, AI is just another tool; it ain’t the holy grail. They gotta be savvy, asking the right questions about how AI impacts fairness, accuracy, and bias. Until we’re sure it’s doing more good than harm, AI should be used with caution. Judges and lawyers will need to keep their eyes peeled and remember: tech might make us smarter, but it doesn’t make us better humans.
Leave a Reply