Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
There has been much handwringing about artificial intelligence's application to law. Much of it regards AI's potential incompatibility with restrictions on the unauthorized interpretation of law. However, the arguments commonly offered in defence of these restrictions fail to justify curtailing a technology that promises to narrow the 'justice gap' and deliver us to a more egalitarian future. Despite this failure, however, I contend that utopian visions of 'robot lawyers' nevertheless cast a dystopian shadow, as the increased use of AI encroaches on the space of human judgement. At stake in this encroachment, I contend, is the possibility of jurisgenesis, the interpretive activity by which law's material power and normative meaning are bound. Preserving this possibility, I conclude, requires that discussions of law and AI must include not only scholars of law and of machine learning, but also humanists, who concern themselves with the connection between our law and our humanity.
Bryan M. Ellrod (Sun,) studied this question.