Artificial justice- would robots make good judges?

A few months ago, I participated in a debate contest in school, and we discussed whether Artificial Intelligence use is beneficial for human future. Artificial intelligence is a type of computer technology which is concerned with making machines work in an intelligent way, similar to the way that the human mind works. So, I belonged to the team which opposes AI use. Actually, I wanted to be in the pro team Because for what reasons do we oppose AI use? I mean, AI exists to help us, right? But there were too many people who wanted to be in the pro team And I had no choice but to be in the opposing team. So our team searched information about side effects of AI. And actually, we stayed up all night doing the research because our teacher only gave us one day to prepare for the debates. I usually think every experience is worth it, but not this time. Anyway, in the first debate, we argued that AI takes away human jobs, and finally, it would dominate human. And the other team said AI is perfect in all way and the world will develop if human keeps using it. We fought really hard and finally were in the third place. After the debate, one of the facts I learned is that many jobs which are done by humans are now being done by AI. Suppose you have a choice. You can either ask your brother to help you with your math homework – by the way, you’re not sure how good at math he is – or you can ask a super robot. Who will you choose? Please raise your hand. Your brother? Super robot? Thank you. Now you can lower your hands, Like all of you, many people choose super robot for work due to its effectiveness and accuracy. However, there are many fields in human jobs which require subjective decisions and the law section is a great case. Since I was little, I’ve heard a lot of cases through my father who is a judge. And he told me that many judges are subjective while working whether they intend to be or not. For example, Judge A says a defendant should be in jail for two years while Judge B says one year is enough And this is because all judges think differently about the same case. And in this respect, humans tend to be more subjective while AI is objective in doing work. We can easily see computers doing objective tasks but now AI is allowing certain fields to automate subjective tasks as well, including the justice system. Have you ever heard of ROSS Intelligence? ROSS Intelligence is first AI lawyer, which collects and analyzes leading cases. Even though some people say that lawyers can be replaced by AI, lawyers are concerned about the extension of AI use in a point that it is unable to understand individual cases. Similarly, according to a research team in Oxford, judge as a job is at risk of disappearing by advent of AI. As Artificial Intelligence is quickly spreading all over the world, robot judge, which is able to reflect about hundreds of cases is likely to be developed in the near future. Let me give you an example. You are impoverished and living with your daughter who is only two years old. One day, she is crying because she’s hungry, but you find no money in your pocket. So you determine to go to a market and steal some milk powder. You get caught and you’re arrested and put on trial with an AI judge who sentences you exactly the same way it sentences a person who stole a TV. Of course I might give you an extreme example, but this kind of situation can actually happen considering the properties of AI. Unfortunately, we can’t prevent this AI from being introduced into our world because the extension of AI use is like a general trend. So we should find a way to take advantage of AI in more effective ways. In the future, there are several ways that AI might be used in legal judgments. In the current system, both lawyers and judges are human. One possible option for the future is that a defendant might be able to choose whether they want an AI judgment or a human judgment. First is when defendant want themselves to be judged by only human judgement 100%. In this case, a judge can listen to the argument of the accused and understand the individual cases. If the accused wants a ruling that allows for subjectivity, he or she may prefer a 100% human judge with no AI. But allowing for human subjectivity also leaves room for human prejudice. Throughout history, many cases have been affected by the prejudice of humans making legal decisions, like all-white juries in cases against African-American defendants in the Civil Rights era in the United States. Well, this circumstance actually happens these days because of the subjectivity of judgment. In these cases, a ruling from AI may be fairer because it might be more objective. Through the system which delivers automatically by considering the information and evidence, they would be likely to be sentenced without being swayed by judge’s prejudice. I think judge is the very job with coexistence of AI and human because it needs both subjectivity and objectivity. Not only for judge, but also for other jobs, we should not bring in AI unadvisedly and let it dominate human jobs. AI can benefit our world. But we should not forget it is like a double-edged sword and there should be detailed restrictions to use it effectively. Thank you.