What's more, AI is mostly a self-learning and thus constantly evolving system, but one that is only as good as its underlying training data. Even if a judge is merely using an AI tool in a supportive capacity, how can they assess the AI's results if they do not understand how the AI-assisted program reached its decision? So who is responsible for the AI's decisions? The judge? The engineer? Particularly if the algorithm is not disclosed, it would be difficult or impossible to understand, question, check or control a decision solely issued by AI. But the algorithms powering AI are programmed by engineers. AI links data and makes decisions based on algorithms and probabilities. In this context, special emphasis must be put on the constitution guaranteeing a judge's independence. Who's in charge? Limitations for AI-made judicial decisionsĪny judicial decision must be made by a human and not a robot. In addition, to optimise internal court workflows, AI could be used to recognise documents and extract metadata as well as to identify internal judicial responsibilities. The potential use cases of AI in the Austrian judiciary are currently focused on supporting judges, for example via AI-automated factual legal research or the automatic creation of minutes during hearings using speech recognition. AI is considered the key technology of the future and thus opens new doors and questions. To establish digital assistance, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) will increase. In the future, general access to information and electronic communication will be enhanced still further.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |