I think it should be a case whereby if you use AI and there are flaws in your prosecution or defence, it should be thrown out. This is another situation whereby nuance is not handled by AI.
What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings?
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
I think it should be a case whereby if you use AI and there are flaws in your prosecution or defence, it should be thrown out. This is another situation whereby nuance is not handled by AI.
What are the opinions of those here on using AI for court rulings?
To me, it seems truly frightening that a Silicon Valley company could be placed in such a direct position of trust and influence over the legal system. There are examples of AI acting in its own self-interest over the wants of its masters, so I do wonder how it would handle cases against its respective company, or things which would directly impact it. Outside of that, I still worry about its impartiality and its overall correctness.
It makes me feel very uneasy.
... did he win?