Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The article examines issues of using artificial intelligence in such a sensitive area of human activity as justice. The authors refer to numerous facts on attempts to create a kind of “smart court” in various countries. At the same time, these attempts run up against circumstances that indicate the need to establish legal restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence in the administration of justice. Moreover, according to the authors’ reasoned conviction, there are areas in which the robot judge turns out to be powerless to replace human intelligence. Based on the philosophical and legal approach to assessing such a phenomenon as digitalization and the phenomenology of legal judgment, the authors conclude that the adoption of a court decision that meets the requirements of the principle of justice is something beyond the reach of artificial intelligence. Such a decision can only be made by a human judge, but not by a robot. AI systems in the judicial system should support rather than supersede judges.
Burdina et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: