Assume we have to deal with AI.

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adi8678

Artificial intelligence and interspecific law

Several experts have warned about artificial intelligence (AI) exceeding human capabilities, a “singularity” at which it might evolve beyond human control. Whether this will ever happen is a matter of conjecture. A legal singularity is afoot, however: For the first time, nonhuman entities that are not directed by humans may enter the legal system as a new “species” of legal subjects. This possibility of an “interspecific” legal system provides an opportunity to consider how AI might be built and governed. We argue that the legal system may be more ready for AI agents than many believe. Rather than attempt to ban development of powerful AI, wrapping of AI in legal form could reduce undesired AI behavior by defining targets for legal action and by providing a research agenda to improve AI governance, by embedding law into AI agents, and by training AI compliance agents.

Would AI be tried by a jury of AI peers?

https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/75974

Artificial intelligence and fair trial rights

The right to a fair trial is the most frequently violated human right before international human rights bodies, and it is more the rule than the exception that national judicial systems are overburdened and overly slow. This chapter asks whether Artificial Intelligence(AI) and Machine Learning(ML) applications can help alleviate this problem, or if they are a threat to securing the right to the independent and impartial application of the law. It argues that the answer depends on whether the applications are designed with a clear vision of what courts are for and finds several current AI applications in various courts and public administrations to be missing this fundamental step. It identifies three key problems, namely the failure of current systems to differentiate between groups and individuals, the failure to take the fundamentally post factum nature of courts into account, and the tendency to abduct systems for another use than that which they were designed for. Following this the chapter builds a theoretical framework for determining what judge tasks can be allocated to or assisted by an AI application and which cannot. It argues that with careful application, cognitive computing type applications which extends the abilities of judges and clerks carries great potential in improving consistency and expediency of court cases. Finally, the chapter reviews emerging legislation on the usage of AI in judicial systems, and finds it to contain many of the same aims as the theoretical framework suggests incorporating, but to still lack detail for optimal application.