👉The table of contents so far is here.
Chapter 8: Overview of Legal Profession Law
8.3. Judicial Artificial Intelligence
As we have seen, the communist judicial system, except in the field of impeachment justice, does not rely on the traditional judicial institution of courts. Consequently, it cannot accumulate precedents of court decisions, or so-called case law. That said, there is an accumulation of precedents demonstrated by judicial bodies in various fields, and these serve a role comparable to case law.
However, such judicial precedents are no longer recorded in the form of printed case law collections. Instead, a system is introduced where they are stored in dedicated artificial intelligence. This can be called “judicial AI.”
Generally, when AI is put into practical use, its functions can be distinguished into three categories: a reference function that extracts vast amounts of stored data as needed; an advisory function that seeks appropriate solutions for specific cases; and a decision-making function that renders judgments on particular matters.
Of these, judicial AI should possess only reference and advisory functions; it must not be granted decision-making capabilities. That is to say, judicial decisions must always be made independently by human legal professionals, and delegating decisions to AI is impermissible. In other words, the principle of “independence of the legal profession” discussed previously also extends to independence from AI.
The reference function of judicial AI is, so to speak, comparable to a case law database. It enables legal professionals to access and utilize all judicial precedents stored within the AI. This reference function also grants access rights to the general public, thereby serving the purpose of disclosing information on judicial precedents.
On the other hand, the advisory function of judicial AI allows legal professionals, when performing their duties, to consult the AI for reasonable solutions based on precedents for the case they are handling, with the AI providing the response. Since resolving cases requiring judicial decisions should generally follow precedents from similar past cases to uphold legal equality and stability, it is meaningful for legal professionals to first utilize the advisory function of judicial AI to obtain its responses.
Therefore, access to this advisory function of judicial AI is granted only to practicing legal professionals, and access by the general public is restricted in principle. However, law school students mentioned earlier may be granted access for educational purposes.
It must be reaffirmed that this advisory function does not mean the AI makes judgments in place of human legal professionals; that is, the AI has no decision-making authority.
Therefore, since the AI's responses are merely advisory opinions and are not binding, it poses no issue whatsoever for legal professionals to render judgments differing from the AI's responses when they ultimately determine that changing established precedents is necessary.
The details regarding the functions and operation of judicial AI as described above must be clearly stipulated as provisions in a dedicated law that itself forms part of the legal profession law.
Furthermore, since AI must also be democratically managed by the Commons' Convention and protected against misuse or autonomous runaway, an Artificial Intelligence Management Center will be established under the Commons' Convention of all Zones to centrally manage all AI deployed in the public sector. Judicial AI will also be managed by this center.
👉The papers published on this blog are meant to expand upon my On Communism.
