Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
History reveals that human societies have suffered in terms of social justice due to cognitive bias. Semantic bias tends to amplify cognitive bias. Therefore, the presence of cognitive biases in extensive historical data can potentially result in unethical and allegedly inhumane predictions since AI systems are trained on this data. The innovation of artificial intelligence and its rapid integration across disciplines has prompted questions regarding the subjectivity of the technology. Current research focuses the semantic bias in legal judgment to increase the legitimacy of training data. By the application of general-purpose Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms, we classify and detect the semantics bias that is present in the Chinese Artificial Intelligence and Law (CAIL) dataset. Our findings demonstrate that AI models acquire superior prediction power in the CAIL dataset, which is comprised of hundreds of cases, compared to a structured professional risk assessment tool. To assist legal practitioners during this process, innovative approaches that are based on AI may be implemented inside the legal arena. To accomplish this objective, we suggested a classification model for semantic bias that is related to the classification and identification of semantic biases in legal judgment. Our proposed model legal field uses the example of categorization along with the identification of the CAIL dataset. This will be accomplished by identifying the semantics biases in judicial decisions. We used different types of classifiers such as the Support Vector Machine (SVM), Naïve-Bayes (NB), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), and the K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN) to come across the preferred results. SVM got 96.90 %, NB has 88.80 %, MLP has 86.75 % and KNN achieved 85.66 % accuracy whereas SVM achieved greater accuracy as compared to other models. Additionally, we demonstrate that we were able to get a relatively high classification performance when predicting outcomes based just on the semantic bias categorization in judicial judgments that determine the outcome of the case.
Javed et al. (Fri,) studied this question.