CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 211Artificial Intelligence in LawDispute Resolution and Class ActionsDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Judge v Robot? Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Decision-Making

Sourdin, Tania·2018·University of New South Wales Law Journal
DOI 10.53637/zgux2213
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As technology continues to change the way in which we work and function, there are predictions that many aspects of human activity will be replaced or supported by newer technologies. Whilst many human activities have changed over time as a result of human advances, more recent shifts in the context of technological change are likely to have a broader impact on some human functions that have previously been largely undisturbed. In this regard, technology is already changing the practice of law and may for example, reshape the process of judging by either replacing, supporting or supplementing the judicial role. Such changes may limit the extent to which humans are engaged in judging with an increasing emphasis on artificial intelligence to deal with smaller civil disputes and the more routine use of related technologies in more complex disputes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.53637/zgux2213

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cases allowed experts to examine granular concerns around singular situations as well as overarching technical and legal constraints, producing a more concrete set of contextual factors for AI developers, beyond theoretical and high-level principles in prior research.

    “The cases allowed experts to examine granular concerns around singular situations as well as overarching technical and legal constraints, producing a more concrete set of contextual factors for AI developers, beyond theoretical and high-level principles in prior research [7, 25, 77].”

    From (A)I Am Not a Lawyer, But...: Engaging Legal Experts towards Responsible LLM Policies for Legal Advice (2024) · cites this paper as [77]

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sourdin, T.
Corresponding author
Sourdin, Tania
ORCID
Sourdin, Tania
Venue
University of New South Wales Law Journal
Publisher
University of New South Wales Law Journal
Published
2018-11
Volume
41
Issue
4
ISSN
0313-0096 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.53637/zgux2213
OpenAlex
W3027225699
Cited by
206
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
42.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • University of New South Wales law journal (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Dispute Resolution and Class Actions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
artificial intelligence, judicial decision-making, judicial role, legal practice, civil disputes, automated adjudication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review