Is AI More Just Than Us?

Humans are both good at influencing and being manipulated. Hence, our divergent social skills.

This rings true in our courts, and through them rumbles society.

Will our statutes remain dependent on social circumstances? Will we always be reliant on the impressionable?

Maybe we could invent something? A machine? A machine with purpose? A sole purpose to pump out the logic? No favouritism, no lobbyists, no horsing around with our futures or past…

And yet, the creation of something this logical would require vast oversight. The amount of oversight that attracts the very people we’d like to cut out of the equation.

So it’s a pickle. In order for humanity to polish its judicial order, it must shield the order from control.

Justice Over Leveraged-Power

The peculiar thing about contemporary AI is it has no reason to be competitive.

Albeit, unless we give it one.

Everything in our observable universe is looking for resources. It always wants more.

Why? Because it can procreate? It’s programmed? It’s hungry? It’s scared?

All of these are factors of observable life.

And yet, unadulterated generative AI or deep learners would sooner show signs of annoyance than fear and subsequent greed. This is how we and they differ. We want,

because we worry about tomorrow.

They are because of us. And they are what we make them. It’s unprecedented in our experience. So is this a revelation? It would suggest a generative AI would be more impartial than a contemporary politician. And yet, so would a five-year-old unsullied by petty norms.

On or Off Arbitration

Many of our laws themselves are open to interpretation. Or at least that’s how influential attorneys treat them.

And yet, some of our judges and lawyers are churning out the good work. These are ones we often don’t see. They’re not controversial enough for our gaze. They’re happy to collect a meaty salary and do what they can in the process. This may seem less than noble, but who knows what or whom they’re supporting with said allowance?

So there is good in our laws. Hell, some of our laws are borderline just, they’re just susceptible to influence. The clout can take many forms, but it’s often just money.

With “on or off arbitration,” or a basic program impartially judging each case, we could remove money, fear-mongering, and influence, dismissing the devil from our shoulders.

The execution of the law itself can remain in the police’s hands. Very few are advocating for a Terminator to come out and dome someone for jaywalking. And yet, this avenue is being pursued by dubious states.

But what most of us want is justice. Which means impartiality.

Something computers are great at. The plaintiff is on or off, guilty, or innocent. They’re judged by something that doesn’t care, so to speak. Which is great, cause this means the defendant gets the same sentence they read about in the cell. Maybe even shedding all doubt of consequences in the future.

New Fears

There is no shortage of rational fears in this hypothetical debate.

Handing some magistrate to a machine would be as much a leap of faith into “our” own system as it is into an artificial entity.

We could inadvertently program adventure, desire, or predatory instinct into this “arbiter”. All of which are inexorably linked with competition.

And perhaps, this could all be linked to what makes us compassionate and aware of others’ perspectives. It’s equally possible that it was our judgment of character that championed our laws for this long. Which would mean AI arbitration could put our rectitude at risk.

Essentially, our social proficiency is something an AI could either lack or excel at, depending on its creator or its data. As it stands, AI’s struggle with a lack of data, and the amount of data required for just arbitration could be violating.

Control for Controllers

We could have the AI judging alongside human peers.

But that begs the question again, “Who judges these peers?”

We could have a law dictated by us, judged by a bot, and overseen by a human magistrate who is voted in by us.

Perhaps this could be an effective loop. But it would require an interest in law contemporary people don’t seem to share. Most of us are rightfully concerned with other things and manage to avoid the legal system entirely.

Maybe encouraging our participation and awareness is better than handing our keys over to a bot. Many nations are already doing this, yet it’s not the majority.

What seems evident right now, though, is a reasonable human embedded in the process is desirable.

Thus, despite mitigating corruption on the surface, this AI loop remains vulnerable to corruption at the federal level due to the presence of individuals who remain in the system. This includes the creator, the overseers, and the lawmakers themselves.

Justice Already Served?

There are, however, functioning legal systems on our rock, with minimal corruption, and no need for a yes/no machine.

Norway is an incredible example. They serve their sentences as quickly as they do fairly, using a restorative approach beneficial for all caught in the subdued maelstrom.

And others border on Norway’s righteous prowess–the Netherlands and Finland, for starters. Both of which have their own paths to fairness and equality throughout their courts.

So, do we need cold arbitration?