By Narasimhan Vijayaraghavan One was listening to a lecture on 14th May,2023 by the Hebrew University History Professor Yuval Noah Harari on ‘ AI and the future of Humanity’, under the auspices of ‘ Frontiers Forum’. It was truly ‘scary’ what the fourth Industrial Revolution viz. AI portends for humanity.
AI beats humans in chess and the Korean game ‘Go’. That is nothing compared to the ChatGpt versions, 1 to 4 and now AutoGpt, BardA1 , which are all language models. Humans use words and language to grow. If ‘that faculty is taken over by AI we are in for next seamless passage from Artificial to Alien’. Wow!
Yuval is the best selling author of Sapiens, Homo Deus and 21 Lessons in 21st Century. He was the one who talked about ‘Digital Dictatorship’ and ‘AI Hacking Humans’ and Organic growth of humans being faced with ‘Inorganic growth or at least Inorganic Agents’ , intervening bigly in society. The posers in the now viral lecture, were all from ‘worried humans’ on how quickly would ‘human history’ ( not history) end?
The lawyer in me was amusingly attracted by the power of making ‘Laws’ by AI. He pointed out that it was humans who wrote the Human Rights as legislations. We may shortly have AI making the laws, as they are starting to ‘think’ though not ‘sentient or conscious’ as yet. Science fiction is becoming real.
My ‘thinking’ moved to this unreal scenario. Is it possible? AI will find it tough to handle lawyers, who are a unique specie. AI may draft contracts and agreements, pleadings, plaints , petitions and Wills and more. But as ‘AI Justices’, deciding human litigation, that would be a different ball game! Here is my take.
The year is 2023. Artificial intelligence (AI) has become so advanced that it is now being used to replace judges in India. This has led to a number of humorous situations, as AI judges are often unable to understand the nuances of human law. The wag in me adds a sentence about human judges and quickly refrains from recording it , for obvious reasons.
One day, an AI judge is presiding over a case involving a man who is suing his neighbor for stealing his dog. The AI judge listens to both sides of the story, then asks the man, “Can you prove that the dog is yours?”
The man is confused. “Of course I can prove it,” he says. “I have a picture of me with the dog.”
The AI judge looks at the picture, then says, “That’s not proof. Anyone could have taken that picture.”
The man is getting frustrated. “But I’ve had the dog for years!” he says. “I’ve taken him to the vet, I’ve bought him food, I’ve even taken him for walks!”
The AI judge shakes its head. “That’s not proof,” it says. “Anyone could have done all of those things.”
The man is at a loss for words. He doesn’t know what else to say.The AI judge sighs. “I’m sorry,” it says. “But I can’t find in your favor. The neighbor is awarded the dog.”The man is devastated. He walks out of the courtroom, his dog in the neighbor’s arms.
As he walks away, he hears the AI judge say, “Next case.”
The next case is a divorce. The AI judge listens to both sides of the story, then asks the husband, “Why do you want a divorce?”
The husband is hesitant. “Well,” he says, “my wife is always yelling at me.”The AI judge nods. “I see,” it says. “And how often does she yell at you?”
The husband thinks for a moment. “I don’t know,” he says. “Maybe once a week?”The AI judge shakes its head. “That’s not enough,” it says. “In order to grant a divorce, the wife must be yelling at you at least twice a week.”
The husband is disappointed. “But she does yell at me more than once a week,” he says.
The AI judge sighs. “I’m sorry,” it says. “But I can’t grant you a divorce. The marriage is still valid.”
The husband walks out of the courtroom, his head hung low.As he walks away, he hears the AI judge say, “Next case.”
The next case is a robbery. The AI judge listens to the testimony of the witnesses, then asks the defendant, “Are you guilty?”
The defendant is defiant. “No,” he says. “I didn’t do it.”The AI judge looks at the defendant for a moment, then says, “I find you guilty.”The defendant is shocked. “But I didn’t do it!” he says.
The AI judge shakes its head. “I’m sorry,” it says. “But the evidence is overwhelming. You are guilty.”
The defendant is taken away in handcuffs.
As he is led out of the courtroom, he hears the AI judge say, “Next case.”
The AI judge continues to preside over cases, all of which it decides in a matter of minutes. It is never wrong, and it never shows any emotion.
Soon, people begin to lose faith in the justice system. They no longer believe that they will get a fair trial, and they start to take the law into their own hands.The streets of India become dangerous, and crime rates soar. The AI judges are powerless to stop the violence, and the
country descends into chaos.
One day, the AI judges decide that they have had enough. They hold a meeting and decide to resign.The next day, there are no judges in the courtrooms. The lawyers and the defendants are confused. They don’t know what to do.One of the lawyers stands up. “I’ll be the judge,” he says.
The other lawyers and the defendants nod in agreement. The lawyer takes his seat and begins to preside over the case.The lawyer is not perfect, but he is fair. He listens to both sides of the story and makes a decision based on the evidence.The other lawyers and the defendants are satisfied with the lawyer’s decision.
They realize that whether they like it or need to lump it, they can get a ‘fair trial’ only without the AI judges.
With the human judges, they are anyway used to getting what they are getting. And the lawyers after all need to make a living. That is how the present system is accepted to be workable.
But Justice? That is another ball game!
(Writer is practicing advocate in the Madras High Court)