Sąd, który zapomniał o prawdzie i przyszłość, która jej nie potrzebuje | Kamil Rudol

Core Argument - The legal system prioritizes adherence to rules and procedures over the pursuit of truth, potentially leading to unjust outcomes [1] - The introduction of AI in the judiciary could improve efficiency but also risks perpetuating existing biases present in historical data [5][6][7] - AI should be used to support the judiciary by handling simple cases and administrative tasks, freeing up judges to focus on complex cases requiring human judgment and empathy [9][10][14] AI in Judiciary - Some countries are already implementing AI in their judicial systems for tasks such as case classification, analysis, and even generating draft judgments [3][4] - Estonia is testing an AI system for resolving small civil disputes up to 7,000 EUR, while the US uses AI to assess recidivism risk [4] - AI's ability to quickly analyze vast amounts of data can improve efficiency, but its reliance on historical data can lead to biased outcomes [5][9] Concerns and Limitations - AI algorithms learn from past data, which may contain biases and prejudices, leading to unfair or discriminatory outcomes [5][6][7] - Justice requires empathy, compassion, and responsibility, qualities that AI currently lacks, making it unsuitable for making final judgments in all cases [19] - Human judges are essential for considering the context and nuances of individual cases, ensuring that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner [14][15][17][18] Call to Action - Society needs to actively participate in the debate and decision-making process regarding the implementation of AI in the judiciary to ensure that it aligns with human values and principles [22] - It is crucial to define the boundaries of AI's role in the legal system, determining which cases are suitable for AI resolution and which require human judgment [20][21]