Rediscovering artificial intelligence and law: an inadequate jurisprudence?

On the concept of relevance in legal information retrieval

“…This requires in-depth legal knowledge, analysis of search engine log files and continuous maintenance. Semi-automated classification using ontologies (Boella et al 2016) is gaining popularity, and notwithstanding the current hype about legal AI applications like IBM's Ross (Beck 2014), scepticism about their performance seems to be a healthy attitude (Paliwala 2016;Remus and Levy 2016 ). 4.…”

Judges and technology

“…86 Paliwala similarly notes that changes have resulted primarily from ordinary information technology methods such as data processing, and results have not been as successful when information technology has been applied to deeper legal processes. 87 According to Sunstein, this is because AI techniques are currently incapable of making the value judgments required by case-based reasoning. 88 There are also other issues, such as undesirable broader impacts that might include stifling the development of the law (see Chapter 8) or 'dehumanizing' the court experience (see Chapter 9), as well as broader potential negative impacts on governments and societies (see Chapter 7) that may partly arise as a result of the restructuring of governance arrangements in the justice system and courts that may be coupled with a loss of status and respect for judges.…”

On the Fairness of 'Fake' Data in Legal AI

“…changing the facts or decisions of cases extra-judicially, is so absurd that it is unlikely to be a concept in need of a theoretical framework. Abdul Paliwala, of the University of Warwick, is critical of the inadequate jurisprudence in the age of AI, stating that "Without a proper awareness of key issues, it is possible that these systems will either replicate past failures or result in systems which though successful in a technical sense produce results which not advance the need for proper legal development" [7].…”