Cloud Hosting

Law Library

AI is becoming more and more prevalent in society, with many people wondering how it will affect the law. How artificial intelligence is impacting our laws and what we can expect for future technology/legal interactions.

The conversation surrounding the relationship between AI and law also touches quite clearly on the ability to rely on Artificial Intelligence to deliver fair decisions and to enhance the legal systems delivery of equity and justice.

In this article, I share insights from my conversations on this topic with Joilson Melo, a Brazilian law expert, and programmer whose devotion to equity and fairness led to a historic change in the Brazilian legal system in 2019, this change mainly affected the system that controls all processes processed digitally in Brazil, the PJe (Electronic Judicial Process).

As a law student, Melo filed a request for action in the National Council of Justice (CNJ) against the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso, resulting in a decision allowing citizens to file applications in court electronically without a lawyer and within the Special Court, observing the value of the case, so that it does not exceed 20 minimum wages. Melos petition revealed provisions in the law that allowed for this and his victory enforced those provisions. The results for the underprivileged and those who couldnt afford lawyers have been immense.

On the relationship between AI and the Law, Melo remains a bit on the fence;

The purpose of the law is justice, equity, and fairness, says Melo.

Any technology that can enhance that is welcome in the legal arena. Artificial Intelligence has already been shown that it can be as biased as the data that it is fed. This instantly places a greater burden of care on us to ensure that it is adopted through a careful process in the legal space and society at large

The use of AI to predict jury verdicts has been around for quite some time now, but it's unclear whether or not an algorithm can accurately predict human behavior. There have also been studies that prove that machine learning algorithms can be used to help judges make sentencing decisions based on factors such as recidivism rates.

In theory, this seems to solve a glaring problem, the algorithm tools are supposed to predict criminal behavior and help judges make decisions based on data-driven recommendations and not their gut.

However, as Melo explains, this also presents some deep concerns for legal experts, AI risk assessment tools run on algorithms that are trained on historical crime data. In countries like America and many other nations, law enforcement has already been accused of targeting certain minorities and this is shown by the high number of these minorities in prisons. If the same data is fed, the AI is going to be just as biased.

Melo continues, Besides, the Algorithms turn correlative insights into causal insights. If the data shows that a particular neighborhood is correlated with high recidivism, it doesnt prove that this neighborhood caused recidivism in any given case. These are things that a Judge should be able to tell from his observations. Anything less is a far cry from justice, unless we figure out a way to cure the data.

As we continue developing smarter technologies, data protection becomes an increasingly important issue. This includes protecting private information from hackers and complying with GDPR standards across all industries that collect personal data about their customers.

Apart from the GDPR, not many countries have passed targeted laws that affect big data. According to the 2018 Technology Survey by the International Legal Technology Association, 100 percent of law firms with 700 or more lawyers use AI tools or are pursuing AI projects.

If this trend continues and meets with the willingness of courts and judges to adopt AI, then they would eventually fall into the category of companies that need to abide by the data protection rules. Client/Attorney privilege could be at risk of a hack and court decisions as well.

The need for stringent local laws that help regulate how data is received and managed has never been more clear, and this is why it is shocking that many governments have not acted faster.

Joilson Melo

Many governments have an unholy alliance with tech giants and the companies that deal most with data, says Melo.

These companies are at the front of national development and are the most attractive national propositions for investments. Leaders do not want to stifle them or be seen as impeding technological advancement. However, if the law must apply equally, governments should take a cue from the GDPR and start now before we see privacy violation worse than we already have.

As Artificial Intelligence becomes more ingrained in our lives, so do the legal issues that surround it.

One of the most prevalent legal questions is whether machines should be allowed to possess self-driving cars and deadly weapons. Self-driving cars are already on the market but they have a long way to go before they could replace human drivers. The technology has not been perfected yet and will require huge strides forward before we can say with certainty that these vehicles are safe for society at large.

The larger concerns about these touch on how easily these algorithms can be hacked and influenced externally.

AI and Weapons/War Crimes: The possibility of autonomous weapons systems has been touted in many spheres as a powerful way to identify and eliminate threats. This has come against strong pushback for obvious reasons. Empathy, concession, and a certain big-picture approach have always played crucial roles in war and border security. These are traits that we still cannot inculcate into an algorithm.

Human Rights Questions: One of the main questions that arise in the area of human rights is with regards to algorithmic transparency. There have been reports of people losing jobs, being denied loans, and being put on no-fly zones with no explanation other than, it was an algorithmic determination.

If this pattern persists the risk to human rights is enormous. The questions of cybersecurity vulnerabilities, AI bias, and lack of contestability are also concerns that touch on human rights.

Melos concern seems more targetted at the law and how it can be preserved as an arbiter of justice and enforcer of human rights and he rightly points out the implications of leaving these questions unanswered;

Deciding not to adopt AI in society and legal systems is deciding not to move forward as a civilization, Melo comments.

However, deciding to adopt AI blindly would see us move back into a barbaric civilization.I believe that the best approach is to take a piece-meal approach towards adoption; take a step, spot the problems, eliminate them and then take another step.

The law and legal practitioners stand to gain a lot from a proper adoption of AI into the legal system. Legal research is one area that AI has already begun to help out with. AI can streamline the thousands of results an internet or directory search would otherwise provide, offerring a smaller digestible handful of relevant authorities for legal research. This is already proving helpful and with more targeted machine learning it would only get better.

The possible benefits go on; automated drafts of documents and contracts, document review, and contract analysis are some of those considered imminent.

Many have even considered the possibilities of AI in helping with more administrative functions like the appointment of officers and staff, administration of staff, and making the citizens aware of their legal rights.

A future without AI seems bleak and laborious for most industries including the legal and while we must march on, we must be cautious about our strategies for adoption. This point is better put in the words of Joilson Melo; The possibilities are endless, but the burden of care is very heavy we must act and evolve with cautiously.

Visit link:
Justice, Equity, And Fairness: Exploring The Tense Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence And The Law With Joilson Melo - Forbes