What's your view on artificial intelligence ChatGPT's ability to act as a judge in a criminal trial?

Good question! I asked ChatGDP the same question, and she (he?) said:

As an AI language model, I don't possess personal opinions or views. However, I can provide you with some considerations regarding the use of artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, as a judge in a criminal trial.

Using AI as a judge in a criminal trial raises several important questions and challenges. Here are some key factors to consider:

Impartiality: Judges are expected to be impartial and unbiased in their decision-making. AI systems, including ChatGPT, can be designed to be neutral and objective, basing their decisions on available data and legal principles. However, ensuring that the AI is free from any biases or discriminatory patterns can be a significant challenge and requires careful training and evaluation.

Legal expertise: Judges need to have a deep understanding of legal principles, case precedents, and relevant statutes. While AI models can be trained on large amounts of legal data, including court cases and legal literature, they may still lack the nuanced understanding and contextual comprehension that human judges possess. The legal system is complex, and human judgment based on experience and interpretation is often required.

Accountability: Judges are accountable for their decisions, and they must explain their reasoning, legal interpretation, and application of laws. AI systems can provide explanations to some extent, but they typically lack the ability to fully articulate complex legal reasoning and may not be able to provide satisfactory justifications for their decisions. This raises concerns about transparency and the ability to challenge or appeal AI-based judgments.

Ethical considerations: The use of AI as a judge raises ethical questions, such as the potential for errors, unintended consequences, or the perpetuation of biases present in the training data. It is crucial to ensure that AI systems used in such contexts are thoroughly tested, regularly audited, and designed with fairness and ethical guidelines in mind.

Human judgment and discretion: The legal system often requires judges to exercise discretion, consider mitigating factors, and weigh various legal arguments. While AI systems can analyze data and provide insights, they may struggle with understanding the complexities of human behavior, emotions, and moral dilemmas. Human judges bring a unique perspective to the decision-making process that AI may not be able to replicate.

In summary, while AI systems like ChatGPT can assist in legal research and provide insights, completely relying on them as judges in criminal trials raises significant challenges and ethical considerations. It is important to carefully evaluate the limitations, biases, and potential consequences of AI-based decision-making in such contexts. Human judgment and oversight remain essential components of the legal system.

ChatGPT should not be used in that way. Laws are open to interpretation and cases require the involvement of judges and juries.

Of course it simply hasn’t any ability to act as a judge, because it’s not a human being and a licensed judge. It can at best only give some recommendations, based on text searches and algorithmic calculations. The power plug taken away or the battery, and such a fictive AI judge system can’t even do that or other simple things, it’s still dysfunctional then.

LagunaToday  09:20 am JST

Thank you for sharing your AI’s answer with us…; this is what “ my “ ChatGPT had to say:

AI language models like ChatGPT are designed to process and generate text based on patterns and examples in the data they were trained on. They lack the legal expertise, contextual understanding, and ability to make judgments required for serving as a judge in a criminal trial.

Being an AI language model, I don't have real-time access to information or the capability to assess evidence, listen to witnesses, consider legal arguments, or make informed decisions based on the facts and applicable laws. The role of a judge in a criminal trial involves a complex set of skills, experience, legal knowledge, and human judgment that are currently beyond the capabilities of AI systems.

AI can, however, assist legal professionals by providing research support, analyzing documents, suggesting relevant case law, or helping with legal research. But the ultimate decision-making and judgment in a criminal trial should rest with human judges who can weigh the evidence, consider legal principles, and ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice.

It has become more difficult to use chat GPT with overloaded servers.

Insane

Absolutely not. We have trial by a jury of your peers in the US and a ChatGPT is not your peer.

You're asking if a baby who wasn't trained in the legal field should be a judge? Way too early to say.

What's your view on artificial intelligence ChatGPT's ability to act as a judge in a criminal trial?

In Japan? Well considering the Judges are beholden to the prosecutors, I'd say its a step up.

Laguna and rcch- seems your ChatGPT has shown more introspection and honesty than many people...

I think a more refined AI trained specifically on past and current cases and laws would be better than any human judge. Being impartial, only accepting concrete evidence, paired with a human judge/human jury would be better than anything. Unfortunately the "jury" in Japan has no power, as they can be vetoed by the judges at any time. The training data also has to be made 100% public so anyone can analyze it and make sure there aren't biases or unfairness in it.

I picture most legal affairs in most countries going full robot/AI in the future. Robocop will be real, will be armed with less lethal and be bulletproof. Cameras all over the dang place, full transparency, no more unnecessary police shootings and more dangerous criminals behind bars. Fairly, judged without bias on race or wealth.

There are no juries in Japan. There are some selected "citizen judges".

ChatGPT-4 can already pass a bar exam with higher marks than human average. But, that is easy for automation, since laws, decisions and precedents are written records.

Two big issues:

One, AI is not truly intelligence and cannot determine if a decision was a bad decision. There are plenty of bad decisions that are not overturned on appeal.

Two, a judge’s role is not just procedural and evidentiary admissibility, sentencing is their main role in guilty verdicts. And that’s a can of worms even today.

Too early to say at the very least. The AI responses brings up some valid points. So I wonder if in a trial the judge and AI arrives at opposite conclusions, would either be able to convince the other to change their minds, or would they always agree to disagree?