Skip to main content

AI in the courtroom. Yes?

AI in the Courtroom 

Our question today is whether AI results can be used in the courtroom. There are at least four major issues pending. If you recall, it was used, but not credited, in a recent case, but it cited non existent sources. But still AI is everywhere, and lawyers use it rabidly. But can you cite it in the courtroom, as an expert source? Here is a brief run down of the issues. They are complex and important. 

The use of AI for expert testimony in a courtroom is a topic of ongoing debate and consideration within the legal community. While AI technologies can provide valuable insights and analysis in various fields, including law, there are several factors to consider when discussing their use in courtrooms:

  1. Reliability and Accuracy: AI systems can provide analyses based on large datasets and algorithms, but their reliability and accuracy can vary depending on the quality of the data and the design of the algorithms. Courts typically require expert testimony to be reliable and based on sound scientific principles.

  2. Transparency and Interpretability: AI systems often work as "black boxes," meaning it can be challenging to understand how they arrive at their conclusions. This lack of transparency can be a significant hurdle in legal proceedings, where transparency and the ability to challenge evidence are essential principles.

  3. Legal and Ethical Considerations: There are legal and ethical considerations regarding the use of AI in legal proceedings, including concerns about bias, privacy, and the potential for misuse. Courts must carefully consider these factors when deciding whether to admit AI-generated evidence.

  4. Admissibility: The admissibility of AI-generated evidence in courtrooms can vary depending on jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case. Courts may consider factors such as the reliability of the technology, the qualifications of the individuals who developed or used the technology, and the relevance of the evidence to the case at hand.

Overall, while AI technologies have the potential to assist legal professionals and provide valuable insights, their use for expert testimony in courtrooms raises complex legal, ethical, and practical considerations that must be carefully evaluated. As technology continues to evolve, it's likely that these issues will continue to be the subject of debate and discussion within the legal community.

P.S. AI assisted this report in identifying the principal issues.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Please Comment.

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Lemming Instinct

  In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...
Post a Comment
Read more