"The experiment centered on a mock robbery case pursuant to the make-believe "AI Criminal Justice Act of 2035." Under the watchful eye of Professor Joseph Kennedy, serving as the judge, law students put on the case of Henry Justus, an African American high school senior charged with robbery. The bots received a real-time transcript of the proceedings and then, like an unholy episode of Judge Judy: The Singularity Edition, the algorithmic jurors deliberated."
"The idea that robots can cure the justice system's bias - and save the government $15/day per juror in the process - is the sort of Silicon Valley pipe dream that generates another round of funding to be heaped on the capex fire. Venture Capitalists and tech bros may market on "disrupting empathy" or whatever, but we're just swapping one bias for another: human for algorithmic, emotional for opaque, personal for corporate."
University of North Carolina law students ran a mock trial that placed AI chatbots—ChatGPT, Grok, and Claude—as jurors in a simulated robbery case under a hypothetical "AI Criminal Justice Act of 2035." The case involved Henry Justus, an African American high school senior charged with robbery, and the bots received a real-time transcript to deliberate after proceedings. The experiment showed that algorithmic jurors can reproduce biases embedded in their designers and training data. Promises of cost savings and technological fixes risk replacing human bias with opaque, corporate-driven algorithmic bias rather than curing injustice.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]