AI VS Judiciary VS Reasoning

 

If the Judiciary can use the AI for its services, be it at the intermediary stage maybe, then how come Courts can question about the AI’s ‘Reasoning’ part itself, when defining the definition of the Natural Person? Even under the Law, once a person stops applying the reasoning, then in the decision-making process, for example, Contract signing, WILLs, Assignments, Decrees etc., the person’s signatory execution doesn’t count. Correct? Issue is, in many courts around World, AI is even used to pass the Decrees in the matters where even small causes matters are involved, and not mere ticketing. And let’s say, even where the basic ticketing is involved, then too, before the AI systems, humans were doing it; and then they were being replaced by the AI, that provide the same, logic and reason, that any human used to provide! In any case, the AI systems are more robust, as no level of corruption is involved. Means, on the ethical point of view, the AI system is better at the administrative level too, compared to what it used to be. Correct? Now the major question ensues:

If it is not reasoned enough, then how the Judiciary is still using its services, even to procure precedent judiciary cases, not even knowing if that AI has applied its reasoning to create the list of the cases involved, and has not missed any, which are being used then to issue decrees! Or let’s take another example of translation of any document, which is a very important job; and not just once upon a time, even today, humans struggle to decode with the exact precision, and get lost in translation. Thus, at what level the reasoning part is evaluated? And how would you define which part of the AI is acting with reason? If you can’t demarcate, then how can you confirm that AI is not reasoned enough, and thus, not involving under the definition of the Natural Person?

And then comes the part that what is the reasoning itself? As I opined in my previous blog, what is or is not consciousness? And if it is the opinions of the experts, then the experts are divided when it comes to AI itself! Tell me one thing. Whether META or GOOGLE, they’re openly writing that AI is a mirage, and it’s foolishness to believe that AI would become conscious in the coming years. Then go back and check, how much money these companies have invested in the AI itself! Are they themselves fools, or are their advisors?

Take another example. How many companies invested in the hydrogen fuel cars? Hardly any! As they knew that it ain’t that easy to produce a controlled reaction at the retail level, Except, what Toyota is claiming otherwise, and I know that, even if it works, Toyota would suppress this technology from the pressure from both OIL & Battery industry, as Japan is under deep down debt of trillions of dollars of US.

Seems, at the layman’s level, we haven’t defined the definitions of what consciousness, reasoning, and mental ability are! If it’s IQ, then AI Rules. If it’s EQ, then there’s no place of it anywhere.

Think about it! Am I wrong?😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi