人工智能与真实决策:预测系统和生成式人工智能与情感认知法律审议。

IF 2 Q2 SOCIOLOGY Frontiers in Sociology Pub Date : 2024-10-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsoc.2024.1417766
Francesco Contini, Alessandra Minissale, Stina Bergman Blix
{"title":"人工智能与真实决策:预测系统和生成式人工智能与情感认知法律审议。","authors":"Francesco Contini, Alessandra Minissale, Stina Bergman Blix","doi":"10.3389/fsoc.2024.1417766","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of artificial intelligence in law represents one of the biggest challenges across different legal systems. Supporters of predictive systems believe that decisionmaking could be more efficient, consistent and predictable by using AI. European legislation and legal scholars, however, identify areas where AI developments are at high risk or too dangerous to be used in judicial proceedings. In this article, we contribute to this debate by problematizing predictive systems based on previous judgments and the growing use of Generative AI in judicial proceedings. Through illustrations from real criminal cases in Italian courts and prosecution offices, we show misalignments between the functions of AI systems and the essential features of legal decision-making and identify possible legitimate usages. We argue that current predictive systems and Generative AI crunch the complexity of judicial proceedings, the dynamics of fact-finding and legal encoding. They reduce the delivery of justice to statistical connections between data or metadata, cutting off the emotive-cognitive process that lies at the core of legal decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":36297,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sociology","volume":"9 ","pages":"1417766"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566138/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence and real decisions: predictive systems and generative AI vs. emotive-cognitive legal deliberations.\",\"authors\":\"Francesco Contini, Alessandra Minissale, Stina Bergman Blix\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsoc.2024.1417766\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of artificial intelligence in law represents one of the biggest challenges across different legal systems. Supporters of predictive systems believe that decisionmaking could be more efficient, consistent and predictable by using AI. European legislation and legal scholars, however, identify areas where AI developments are at high risk or too dangerous to be used in judicial proceedings. In this article, we contribute to this debate by problematizing predictive systems based on previous judgments and the growing use of Generative AI in judicial proceedings. Through illustrations from real criminal cases in Italian courts and prosecution offices, we show misalignments between the functions of AI systems and the essential features of legal decision-making and identify possible legitimate usages. We argue that current predictive systems and Generative AI crunch the complexity of judicial proceedings, the dynamics of fact-finding and legal encoding. They reduce the delivery of justice to statistical connections between data or metadata, cutting off the emotive-cognitive process that lies at the core of legal decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36297,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Sociology\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"1417766\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566138/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1417766\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2024.1417766","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能在法律中的应用是不同法律体系面临的最大挑战之一。预测系统的支持者认为,使用人工智能可以提高决策的效率、一致性和可预测性。然而,欧洲立法和法律学者指出了人工智能发展的高风险领域,或者说在司法程序中使用人工智能过于危险。在本文中,我们将对基于以往判决的预测系统以及在司法程序中越来越多地使用生成式人工智能提出质疑,从而为这一辩论做出贡献。通过对意大利法院和检察院真实刑事案件的举例说明,我们展示了人工智能系统的功能与法律决策基本特征之间的错位,并确定了可能的合法用途。我们认为,当前的预测性系统和生成式人工智能会削弱司法程序的复杂性、事实调查和法律编码的动态性。它们将司法交付简化为数据或元数据之间的统计联系,切断了作为法律决策核心的情感认知过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Artificial intelligence and real decisions: predictive systems and generative AI vs. emotive-cognitive legal deliberations.

The use of artificial intelligence in law represents one of the biggest challenges across different legal systems. Supporters of predictive systems believe that decisionmaking could be more efficient, consistent and predictable by using AI. European legislation and legal scholars, however, identify areas where AI developments are at high risk or too dangerous to be used in judicial proceedings. In this article, we contribute to this debate by problematizing predictive systems based on previous judgments and the growing use of Generative AI in judicial proceedings. Through illustrations from real criminal cases in Italian courts and prosecution offices, we show misalignments between the functions of AI systems and the essential features of legal decision-making and identify possible legitimate usages. We argue that current predictive systems and Generative AI crunch the complexity of judicial proceedings, the dynamics of fact-finding and legal encoding. They reduce the delivery of justice to statistical connections between data or metadata, cutting off the emotive-cognitive process that lies at the core of legal decision-making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Sociology
Frontiers in Sociology Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
198
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cognitive dissonance as a reason for low perceived HIV risk among Black women. Indigenous Maya-Mam leadership competencies: a grounded theory study. Scientific mapping of the nexus between entrepreneurial orientation and environmental sustainability: bibliometric analysis. Contesting crisis narratives amidst climatic breakdown: Climate change, mobility, and state-centric approaches to migration. From speech acts to communicative acts: social network debates about sexual consent.
×
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