I would not mind if I saw Hugo, the automaton from Hugo, presiding over a court proceeding. Hugo's beautiful complexity has forever captivated me. I have always marvelled at what science and humanity can achieve, particularly when that achievement is wrapped in a design so elegant that it compels you to stop and stare. But the first thing I would do is check whether Hugo was sitting there alone or alongside human judges. No matter how much I admire the craftsmanship behind Hugo, or the fact that it can write in elegant cursive script, I know it cannot create, comprehend, or be held responsible for moral reasoning. For that, at least for now, we are stuck with our own species. And that may be a very good thing.

As artificial intelligence rapidly enters legal practice, that question is no longer confined to science fiction. It has become a practical challenge for courts, arbitrators, lawyers, and policymakers around the world. Preparing for a recent international webinar hosted under the Center for International Investment and Commercial Arbitration's (CIICA) inaugural Co-Arbitration initiative, themed "Future-Proofing Arbitration", provided a timely opportunity to confront this issue. Beyond the excitement surrounding technological innovation lies a more fundamental question: what role should AI play in the administration of justice, and where must human judgment remain indispensable?

As predictive algorithms and large language models become embedded within legal workflows, public........

© The Nation