“when automated decision-making is being used in many other fields, it may not be long before parties will be asking why routine decisions cannot be made more quickly and, subject to a right of appeal to a human judge, by a machine"
The danger with this is whether it could work for more than one generation of lawyers. We trust the right of appeal to the human judge precisely because we assume the human judge has acquired all the requisite knowledge and skills the old fashioned way. There's only so much thinking and research that can be outsourced without losing the ability to think and research.
There seems to be an internal inconsistency. Vos suggests AI programmes to draft documents or review documents, but the judicial guidance points out (correctly) that "Generative AI does not generally provide completely reliable information" and "does not check its responses by reference to an authoritative database. So beware that what you get out of an LLM may be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or biased". It goes on to remind us that "you are responsible for your work product, not ChatGPT." The consequence is that the client must pay for the lawyer's investment in the AI programme, and then the lawyer has to check the work it produces anyway. It would surely be quicker and cheaper if the lawyer did the work in the first place. Inevitably when you are checking the work of another you assume it will be correct, and so the chances of missing errors increases. It is a bit like relying on a pupil's draft! Not always sensible or reliable. I fear for insurance premiums if reliance on AI becomes common.
Don't want to overstate it or take anything away from Vos, but yes, certain Crown Courts refuse to accept paper bases of plea etc. There was a flurry in downloading scanning apps for iPhones at teh start...
Says Vos MR: '“when automated decision-making is being used in many other fields, it may not be long before parties will be asking why routine decisions cannot be made more quickly and, subject to a right of appeal to a human judge, by a machine”. Is not this the critical question? A lot of simpler decisions and case management at a variety of levels could be dealt with on this basis - ie with a right of appeal to a human - and thus a lot of time be saved.
And don't tell mediators; but could not a lot of mediation and early neutral evaluation be dealt with by AI (ie on a first - which may be final - thoughts basis)?
Paperless courts involve relatively unsophisticated software & no great degree of technical understanding - comparable to running your substack account here. I would be surprised if you felt qualified to set the standards for the adoption & use of AI in our justice system based on your ability to run a substack account - we need a far bigger conversation around this proposed development (& urgently) 🤔
“when automated decision-making is being used in many other fields, it may not be long before parties will be asking why routine decisions cannot be made more quickly and, subject to a right of appeal to a human judge, by a machine"
The danger with this is whether it could work for more than one generation of lawyers. We trust the right of appeal to the human judge precisely because we assume the human judge has acquired all the requisite knowledge and skills the old fashioned way. There's only so much thinking and research that can be outsourced without losing the ability to think and research.
There seems to be an internal inconsistency. Vos suggests AI programmes to draft documents or review documents, but the judicial guidance points out (correctly) that "Generative AI does not generally provide completely reliable information" and "does not check its responses by reference to an authoritative database. So beware that what you get out of an LLM may be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or biased". It goes on to remind us that "you are responsible for your work product, not ChatGPT." The consequence is that the client must pay for the lawyer's investment in the AI programme, and then the lawyer has to check the work it produces anyway. It would surely be quicker and cheaper if the lawyer did the work in the first place. Inevitably when you are checking the work of another you assume it will be correct, and so the chances of missing errors increases. It is a bit like relying on a pupil's draft! Not always sensible or reliable. I fear for insurance premiums if reliance on AI becomes common.
Don't want to overstate it or take anything away from Vos, but yes, certain Crown Courts refuse to accept paper bases of plea etc. There was a flurry in downloading scanning apps for iPhones at teh start...
Fine, thanks.
Says Vos MR: '“when automated decision-making is being used in many other fields, it may not be long before parties will be asking why routine decisions cannot be made more quickly and, subject to a right of appeal to a human judge, by a machine”. Is not this the critical question? A lot of simpler decisions and case management at a variety of levels could be dealt with on this basis - ie with a right of appeal to a human - and thus a lot of time be saved.
And don't tell mediators; but could not a lot of mediation and early neutral evaluation be dealt with by AI (ie on a first - which may be final - thoughts basis)?
Not sure he is the most technologically advanced- since DCS is 2016 many circuit judges have abandoned paper, as have many criminal practitioners.
Have those judges refused to accept any submissions on paper? Could their courts cope if they did?
Paperless courts involve relatively unsophisticated software & no great degree of technical understanding - comparable to running your substack account here. I would be surprised if you felt qualified to set the standards for the adoption & use of AI in our justice system based on your ability to run a substack account - we need a far bigger conversation around this proposed development (& urgently) 🤔