One of them is that humans may find different roles and positions than what we are used to today.
So if, for argument’s sake, a machine were to be built that could give an unavoidably accurate answer to a legal question, and thus an almost unavoidable response to the probable outcome of a dispute, the role of the lawyer could theoretically be transformed For addressing questions outside the field of answers. Maybe, knowing how to ask the right questions to the machine, and the machine will provide the answer. Therefore, he will worry about whether the machine is given all the most suitable elements and parameters to generate the expected answer.
Or he might go into that field of “training” the legal machine, and then supply or ensure that all the legal data and information needed to make the assessment is supplied to the machine.
Since the machine, on this assumption, will be able to provide an unavoidable degree of precision in making what we consider to be “fair” judgments, the role of the judge may become to ensure that the parties are providing the machine with the necessary elements to reach a judgment, and that the machine input Comply with the applicable judgment criteria in terms of fairness, reasonableness, proportionality, non-discrimination, etc.
By the way, all of this seems to be in line with the famous five principles developed by CEPEJ – the Council of Europe’s Committee on Judicial Efficiency, a CoE body representing 47 countries whose purpose is to test and monitor the effectiveness of the European judicial system. efficiency and functioning) in the ethical charter on the use of artificial intelligence in the justice system: (i) the principles of respect for fundamental rights; (ii) the principles of non-discrimination (iii) the principles of quality and safety; (iv) the principles of transparency, impartiality, equity ( v) User Control Principles.
Now, even accepting the idea that the role of humans in the future, where artificial intelligence is heavily used in the legal field, may shift only to the field of supervision, there are other considerations. Mainly because when we imagine a justice system administered by these seemingly neutral and infallible instruments, we represent to ourselves an institution that merely enforces laws and rules. Mere executors of the commandments.
However, this manifestation of justice does not exist in actual reality, because, in violation of any principle and principle of separation of powers, those who pass judgment actually do help to produce laws and change their laws to some extent. structure. That is, the judicial function often plays a role specifically in the creation and consolidation of rules.
Of course, the extent of this varies across legislative and constitutional regimes. This is certainly more the case in common law countries, where laws are formed through decisions set by precedent.
However, the same is true in statutory law countries such as Italy, France, and Germany. In these systems, in fact, interpretations given through judicial decisions sometimes enforce and even bend formal law, filling loopholes as they are found, and ignoring them when there are circumstances that make them inconsistent with higher-order principles and put it into nothingness.
That said, judicial functions, whether directly or indirectly, often end up encroaching on the domain of regulatory functions, and this can happen at different levels.
Note: This does not rule out the possibility that, in the abstract, machines asked to make regulations cannot even do better than humans. If only for the fact that history is full of bad human regulators. As an extreme example, consider the harrowing experience of the Holocaust and ethnic cleansing: these horrors were legally supported by a legislative system based on macroscopic principles of inhumanity, but created and imposed by humans themselves.
Where Specification Manufacturing Meets Artificial Intelligence
Another key point is: are we really sure we want to get the machine into the spec production process? to what extent? We must bear in mind that this entry can also be “crawling” through the half-open gates of the jurisdictional functions.
Human-imposed moral and formal barriers (e.g., Robot Law, Asimov’s Law, or indeed the principles articulated in a European context on the use of AI in the judicial system) can be comforting.
In this case, these rules are directly dictated by humans to machines, and respond broadly to the satisfaction of humans’ own existential mission. That is, they are all conservative and functional in some way to human development and preservation.
It is here that a bit of a philosophical dilemma is triggered, if you will: if we ever allow a non-human entity to fully enter into the norm-forming process, given that it is, precisely as an entity, inherently endowed with its own existence mission, what could prevent it from writing rules that do not respond to the mission of human existence?
To take an extreme example, if we were to raise the issue of overpopulation and scarcity of food and energy resources on a global scale, as humans, we are subject to certain pathological drifts of ideology that we would morally reject as a means of solving the problem Assume a solution to mass extinction or the murder of humans.
The same problem, viewed from the perspective of a non-human entity that may not recognize the same moral principles, may result in a solution to mass extinction, perhaps based on selective criteria designed to eliminate the weakest subject (those prescribed by human ethics should be retained as a matter of priority) as the most reasonable solution on a level of strict and cold logic.
Massimo Chiriatti, one of Italy’s leading experts on artificial intelligence, has in many writings articulated his limitations to artificial intelligence and the ironclad ways in which humans must remain The point of view of supervisory role, in his “Artificial Unconsciousness” pointed out:
“There is a very important point to consider: every AI prediction is a quantitative assessment, not a qualitative assessment, and for us humans, choices are almost never simple calculations. We make decisions based on values that cannot be measured and therefore cannot be calculated. Make decisions. We are the teachers of the machines. We implicitly do so as they take in the data we create, build models, and give us answers.
When we give them instructions on how to do the work, we explicitly do so. For these reasons, we must pay attention to how they learn, because in doing so they evolve. “
Apart from the extreme examples just given, while opposing technological developments is futile and illusory, such processes must be governed with the utmost awareness.
Today we are discussing the impact of artificial intelligence on the legal profession, in terms of these situations and values, the extreme subtlety and specificity associated with intellectual maturity, creativity and all the components that we like to trace back to the intangible nature of being human.
However, the same problem is bound to have a large-scale impact on hundreds of jobs, and machines will do jobs as good or better than humans in a fraction of the time and at infinitesimally low cost.
Should we feel threatened by cryptocurrencies and artificial intelligence (AI)?
As social and political views of the world of work and the economy are set to revolutionize, the sheer proportions of this issue should prompt us to reflect on the consequences that will affect the real world and our ability to read it.
If it is reasonable to ask many questions about the legal profession, it is necessary to consider that similar questions must be asked in most areas of the working world.
The most immediate question for us is, “What will happen to humans, judges, and lawyers, who today perform roles and functions that may be performed by machines tomorrow? How will they make a living?”
But at the level of the collective good, there’s more: “Who’s going to pay the social security contributions, who’s going to provide the community with the taxes generated by the income of all the human workers replaced by machines?” What happens to people (assistants, collaborators, practitioners, etc.)
Well, these issues also arise in all the other job categories that are likely to be hit by robots and the Crypto revolution in a shorter time than it is likely to affect legal workers.
Scenarios emerged that could render sociological, economic, anthropological, and political views as known today obsolete: socialism, liberalism, libertarianism, sovereignty, etc. would lose their conceptual foundations.
Many, if not all, will have to be rethought from scratch.
But returning to the topic of AI in the legal field, my personal opinion is that the role of lawyers (professional interpreters not only of norms but of facts, and to some extent humans) will not be limited to transfer to legal Different areas of the service production cycle.
My idea is that lawyers, and legal practitioners more generally, can be given a higher role: that is, to ensure that awareness in the governance of technological , but also consciously and reasonably curb it.
There is a famous Chinese saying, “When the wind is raging, some people build barriers, while others build windmills.”
Now, while I like to think that I can be counted among those who passionately devoted themselves to building windmills “when the winds of change blow”, I don’t want to get to the point where windmills no longer need a human presence because their presence is dedicated to other windmills needs.
If it really reaches that point, do humans still need such a windmill?
Now, by definition, a lawyer is someone who is called (ad vocatum) to defend and defend a cause. This is his business: He will have to make sure that humans stick to the rules and that machines continue to play the role for which they were created: to serve humans.
And when necessary, he’s going to have to step up and fight, so that’s how it is and it will always be.
Fight for the good of humanity. Like Mazinga Zeta from the famous Japanese cartoon, for those who remember it.
Sounds good, but isn’t Mazinga Zeta also a robot?
Source of information: Compiled from CRYPTONOMIST by 0x Information.The copyright belongs to the author Luciano Quarta – The Cryptocurrency Lawyer, and shall not be reproduced without permission