Exploring Defuturing to Design Artificial-Intelligence Artifacts: A Systemic-Design Approach to Tackle Litigiousness in the Brazilian Judiciary

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW Laws Pub Date : 2024-01-11 DOI:10.3390/laws13010004
L. A. C. Münch, Taís Schilling Ferraz
{"title":"Exploring Defuturing to Design Artificial-Intelligence Artifacts: A Systemic-Design Approach to Tackle Litigiousness in the Brazilian Judiciary","authors":"L. A. C. Münch, Taís Schilling Ferraz","doi":"10.3390/laws13010004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From the perspective of defuturing design philosophy, this article discusses the close relationship between the growing body of artificial-intelligence (AI) artifacts in the Brazilian Judiciary and the phenomenon of litigiousness therein. Litigiousness has traditionally been tackled through mechanisms that increase productivity and efficiency in case processing, a strategy that has not succeeded in reducing litigiousness, as data make evident. Analyzing data from relevant sources, this article demonstrates that AI artifacts mostly perform tasks related to clustering and mass handling of cases, following the same path dependency. Consequently, they entail risks of judges’ alienation and loss of agency, which can negatively impact citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover, they defuture; that is, they erase other (preferable) futures. Albeit AI artifacts can play a part in tackling litigiousness, there should be a critical reflection upon futuring and defuturing. Therefore, this article recommends that SoDF—a systemic approach to design that seeks to explore design consequences, futuring and defuturing—be mandatory to any AI design process. Additionally, it proposes continuous judicial monitoring for alienation and loss of agency, as well as investments in judicial education to empower judges to effectively control and supervise AI artifacts. Finally, it suggests a further research agenda.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws13010004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From the perspective of defuturing design philosophy, this article discusses the close relationship between the growing body of artificial-intelligence (AI) artifacts in the Brazilian Judiciary and the phenomenon of litigiousness therein. Litigiousness has traditionally been tackled through mechanisms that increase productivity and efficiency in case processing, a strategy that has not succeeded in reducing litigiousness, as data make evident. Analyzing data from relevant sources, this article demonstrates that AI artifacts mostly perform tasks related to clustering and mass handling of cases, following the same path dependency. Consequently, they entail risks of judges’ alienation and loss of agency, which can negatively impact citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover, they defuture; that is, they erase other (preferable) futures. Albeit AI artifacts can play a part in tackling litigiousness, there should be a critical reflection upon futuring and defuturing. Therefore, this article recommends that SoDF—a systemic approach to design that seeks to explore design consequences, futuring and defuturing—be mandatory to any AI design process. Additionally, it proposes continuous judicial monitoring for alienation and loss of agency, as well as investments in judicial education to empower judges to effectively control and supervise AI artifacts. Finally, it suggests a further research agenda.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索去伪存真,设计人工智能产品:解决巴西司法机构诉讼问题的系统设计方法
本文从去污设计哲学的角度出发,讨论了巴西司法机构中日益增多的人工智能(AI)人工制品与其中的诉讼现象之间的密切关系。诉讼率问题历来是通过提高案件处理的生产力和效率的机制来解决的,但正如数据所显示的那样,这一策略并没有成功减少诉讼率。本文分析了相关来源的数据,表明人工智能人工智能主要执行与案件集群和大规模处理相关的任务,遵循相同的路径依赖。因此,它们会带来法官异化和丧失代理权的风险,从而对公民的基本权利产生负面影响。此外,人工智能还具有 "去未来化"(defuture)的特点,即抹杀了其他(更可取的)未来。尽管 AI 人工智能可以在解决诉讼问题方面发挥作用,但我们应该对未来化和去未来化进行批判性反思。因此,本文建议,SoDF--一种系统性的设计方法,旨在探索设计后果、未来性和违宪性--应成为任何人工智能设计过程的必修课。此外,文章还建议对异化和代理权丧失进行持续的司法监控,并对司法教育进行投资,以增强法官有效控制和监督人工智能人工制品的能力。最后,它提出了进一步的研究议程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Energy Security, Energy Transition, and Foreign Investments: An Evolving Complex Relationship The Right to Data Portability as a Personal Right Beyond Auto-Brewery: Why Dysbiosis and the Legalome Matter to Forensic and Legal Psychology The OECD Dispute Resolution System in Tax Controversies Reconceptualizing Policing for Cybercrime: Perspectives from Singapore
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1