AI in the Courts of Ukraine: Why an Algorithm Cannot Replace a Live Judge.

According to ТСН: The judicial system is gradually integrating elements of artificial intelligence, but their improper use can create serious risks and cannot replace judges.

Marina Barsuk, the speaker judge of the Northern Appeal Economic Court, emphasizes the importance of human control and accountability, which cannot be replaced by algorithms. Despite the heavy workloads on judges, one should not seek an 'alternative' to judicial decisions in AI.

“As soon as the decision-making center shifts to an algorithm, not only the fate of an individual is at stake, but also the foundation of the independence of the judicial branch of government. After all, the judicial process is a living process of competition, in which each party must be confident that a thinking person, not an algorithm, is making the decision,” writes the judge.

Barsuk recalls the times when decisions were made manually, and codes were updated with scissors and glue. With the advent of technology, judges' work became easier, but this did not relieve them of the need to think and bear responsibility for their actions.

“I remember well the times when judges wrote decisions by hand, and there were special departments in the courts that printed the texts of rulings and decisions. Over time, printed codes, the pages of which were covered with cut-out changes, gave way to electronic resources. There was no longer a need for cutouts as they were updated automatically. Back then, it would not have occurred to anyone to suggest replacing a judge with an automatic knowledge bank,” writes the judge.

Referring to a recent UN report on the use of AI in justice, Barsuk notes that algorithms can create a number of problems, including the 'black box' effect which complicates understanding the logic of decision-making.

Furthermore, language models of artificial intelligence are trained on large volumes of data that contain biases, errors, and stereotypes. This can give the results an illusion of objectivity, as 'the machine seems smarter'.

“By using AI in the decision-making process or even for the preliminary assessment of a case, the court and the parties lose the ability to verify its validity. The program, based on its algorithmic assessment, provides a conclusion that cannot be verified and it is unclear which specific criteria influenced the formation of that particular position, which contradicts the principles of competitiveness and public justice, as participants cannot trace which criteria influenced the outcome,” writes the judge in her article.

In today's world, where technology increasingly permeates various spheres of life, it is important to maintain a balance between innovation and traditional principles of justice. The use of artificial intelligence in courts should occur with maximum caution, considering all risks associated with its application. Marina Barsuk's words emphasize that the human factor in justice remains irreplaceable, and technology should complement, not replace, the guidelines of justice.