几天后，法官杰弗里·沃斯(英语：Geoffrey Vos)将退休出任"滚球大师"，这是英国民事司法系统中最高级的职位。 他试图激起关于法官是否以及如何使用人工智能的辩论。
在最新的指引下，建议英格兰的法官将AI的使用限制在行政任务上，沃斯告诉WIRED他经常使用MicrosoftCopilot来定位远方文件并总结出大量的正文。 但最近，他访问了中国深圳的一家法院，在AI的大力协助下，法官已经对民事纠纷作出裁决。 沃斯对所见所闻印象深刻，认为全球各地的法院应当考虑跟进。
这条路充满了陷阱。 多名律师被抓住，引用案例法被AI幻觉，同时，以聊天员作为他们的法律顾问，诉讼当事人以前所未有的声称数量淹没了法院，其中一些是假的。
然而，沃斯仍然坚信，大赦国际总有一天会帮助更快地解决民事纠纷，而且费用要低得多。 虽然复杂的商业纠纷和敏感的家庭案件可能需要一名人类法官，但他认为，人身伤害声称，价值低的职业过失案件，以及类似案件可以很容易地由大赦国际裁决。
Vos告诉WIRED。 “问题是，应划出哪一行？”
鉴于他即将退休，沃斯的辩论基本上是一场哲学辩论。 但对于这个行业的其他人，以及编码师、网络安全专家、数学教授
10月，WIRED在伦敦皇家法院的办公室会见了沃斯。 我们讨论了AI向法庭蔓延的方式、它的实际和伦理问题(融资)，以及司法系统如何适应以服务新一代的融资与技术。
本次谈话经过了编辑，内容既长又清晰。
WIRED：你离退休只有几天时间。 当AI开始重塑法律实践与司法管理方式时
(笑声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声)(掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声(掌声) (掌声) (掌声(掌声) (掌声) (掌声) (掌声(掌声) (掌声) 我们迅速进入了文字处理器，传真，最后是电脑。
律师以小写c为保守。 但这并不表示他们应该向后看，这意味着他们应当谨慎地通过改革，睁开眼睛。
法律制度为本国人民服务。 如果你没有同样的技术波长，但是时候让新一代的领导法官来决定了。
你是如何在练习中建立AI的？
我并不用它来写判决，但我用它来找出问题，浏览大量材料，这会节省我的时间。 我每天有11次会议我知道有一份文件是几年前创造的，我每天都这样
在法律中，魔鬼不是总是在细节中吗？对法律制度的信心不取决于法官是否将审查和考虑每一寸法院呈件的理解吗？
我比较谨慎地用它来阅读我的案件文件
人们对我们的司法制度有信心，因为他们相信我们的法官是绝对正直的。 为了不失去这种完整性，你必须解释你是如何采用技术的，并达成一个广泛的共识，即这是适当的。
AI现在怎么渗入法庭？它是否改变了诉讼当事人和法律专业人员的行为方式？呕吐有什么问题？
它正在迅速改变一切。 我们看到每年开始审理的县法院案件数量增加了10%，这似乎可能会增加。 因为每个人都有法律问题，要求它提出索赔的细节、案件和索赔表——它可以。
但是，这些声称中有多少比例是基于健全的法律原则？多少时候，人们被一个聊天器所引导，误以为自己有权利主张？
我们没有数据。 但若只因为要求是由AI创造
显示因为技术而有更多人诉诸法律。 过去正义的问题之一是只有富人才能得到正义。
如果人们有一个足以困扰ChatGPT的问题，他们可能真的认为自己有权利主张。 当你详细探讨他们的问题时，你可能会发现这实际上有点不同，但这可能仍然是一个法律问题，而且对他们来说，希望引起人们的注意或许还是合理的。
人们一般不会浪费时间。 他们一般不会制造麻烦。
为何AI有机会编造法官以前能够依靠的证据——影像、录像和录音？这给法庭留下了什么？
通常，法官必须决定一个人是否说出真相。 这是最困难的事情，因为人类不擅长说谎。 但法官每天都做出这些决定。 在人工智能制造出虚假形象的人身上
我们之所以对深层假象如此兴奋，但实际上，这就是判断。
但我们谈论的是一整类证据，这是否影响法官决定是否在撒谎？
总是这样我们总是不得不决定遗嘱是否是伪造的，因为人们曾经这样做。 录音和录像都是一样的。 这仅仅是向法庭提供的虚假信息类型的延伸。
人们会发现，当他们向法庭出示假象时，他们正在作伪证，然后会坐牢，就像他们伪造遗嘱一样。
我认为我们需要谨慎地预测灾难。 我非常乐观。
更简单的民事案件完全由大赦国际裁决。 为什么你们相信我们要去的地方？
你需要找到一种在文化谷物范围内伸张正义的方法。 这并不意味着你只处理TikTok的所有案件。 但如果你不明白人们要求LLMs回答太阳下几乎所有的问题，包括法律问题
这完全是共识。 只有人们同意特定情况下的程序，或者社会通过立法作出决定，才有可能要求他们接受算法决策。
当人们上法庭并获得负面结果时，即使他们认为结果是典型的甚至错误的，当结果以人的方式交付时，它可以随着时间的推移被接受。 对AI来说，我们必须小心；人们接受由机器驱动的不利决定可能不那么容易。
我非常希望看到就如何解决争端进行非常公开的国际讨论。
我怀疑人们之所以反对AI审判，如何解决这个解释性问题？
我认为这与推理无关，AI可以产生非常可信的推理。 你看不出它是如何产生这种推理的，但你可以看到它所产生的推理，你可以判断其可信度。
我认为你永远也不会放弃人类裁判。 在人类的心理中，想要由同伴来判断。 但这并不表示在某些情况下人们不愿有迅速的结果
你在哪里划线？
我认为法官们还不能说。 这是社会、政治家和立法需要解决的问题。 这一辩论非常重要。
我认为，监护和家庭案件是人们甚至年轻一代都期望作出基本人类判断的领域之一。 在复杂的商业案件中，我认为情况也是如此。 但是，我想我们将通过利用AI来整理信息，让决策过程更好、更容易地决定商业案件。
我们将允许更多人更廉价、更迅速地利用技术诉诸司法。 这将对经济和我们所服务的人民整体有好处。
本文由 AI宝库自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
In a few days, judge Geoffrey Vos will retire as Master of the Rolls, the most senior position in England’s civil justice system. As one of his final acts, he’s trying to stoke a debate about whether—and how—judges should be using artificial intelligence.
Under the latest guidance, judges in England are advised to confine their use of AI to administrative tasks, and Vos tells WIRED he uses Microsoft Copilot all the time to locate far-flung documents and summarize large bodies of text. But recently, he visited a court in Shenzhen, China, where civil disputes are already being decided by judges with heavy assistance from AI. Impressed by what he saw, Vos believes that courts across the globe should consider following.
That road is littered with pitfalls. Multiple lawyers have been caught citing case law hallucinated by AI, and in a first for the UK, somebody recently lost their license to practice in part because they misused the technology. Meanwhile, with chatbots as their legal counsel, litigants are flooding the courts with an unprecedented number of claims, some of them bogus.
Yet Vos remains convinced that AI will someday help resolve civil disputes more rapidly and in ways that cost far less. While complicated commercial disputes and sensitive family cases might require a human judge, he believes that personal injury claims, low-value professional negligence cases, and the like could easily be adjudicated by AI.
“What most people desperately want in civil disputes is resolution,” Vos tells WIRED. “The question is, where is the line to be drawn?”
Given his impending retirement, the debate for Vos is largely a philosophical one. But for everyone else in the profession—and for coders, cybersecurity experts, math professors, and a whole host of others—the rules are changing fast.
In October, WIRED met with Vos at his office at the Royal Courts of Justice, London. We discussed the ways that AI is spilling into the courts, the practical and ethical issues it raises, and how the justice system might adapt to serve a new generation raised alongside the technology.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
WIRED: You’re just a few days away from retirement. How do you feel about leaving the post at this particular juncture, as AI begins to reshape how law is practiced and justice administered?
GEOFFREY VOS: When I started as a lawyer, we had foolscap paper, typists, and Tipp-Ex. We moved rapidly into word processors, faxes, and eventually computers.
Lawyers are conservative with a lowercase c. But that doesn’t mean that they should be backward-looking or retrogressive. It means they should be adopting change cautiously, with their eyes open.
The legal system is for the people of this country. You can’t be effective in providing access to justice if you’re not on the same technological wavelength. But it’s time to leave it to a new generation of leadership judges.
How have you built AI into your practice to date?
I don’t use it for writing judgments, but I use it for finding things out, navigating large quantities of material, and checking things. It saves me time. I have 11 meetings a day. I know there’s a document created years ago that’s relevant to my meeting—and Copilot finds it in seconds. I do that every day.
In law, isn’t the devil always in the details? Doesn’t confidence in the legal system depend on the understanding that a judge will review and consider every inch of every court submission?
I’m a little more cautious about using it to read papers for my cases, but that’s because I do the most important cases in the system.
People have confidence in our justice system because they believe that our judges have absolute integrity. In order not to lose that integrity, you have to explain how you’re adopting technology and achieve a broad consensus that it is appropriate.
How is AI spilling into the courts right now? Is it changing how litigants and legal professionals behave? What issues is it throwing up?
It’s changing everything remarkably quickly. We see a 10 percent rise in the number of county court cases started every year—and it looks as if this may increase. That’s because everybody who has a legal problem now puts it into Gemini, ChatGPT, or Claude. Ask it to create a particulars of claim, a case, a claim form—it can.
What proportion of these claims are based on sound legal principles, though? How often are people led by a chatbot to mistakenly believe they have a claim?
We don’t have the data. But I think it’s a mistake to assume that just because a claim is created by AI, it’s totally frivolous.
In a way it’s a good problem, because it shows there’s greater access to justice because of technology. One of the problems with justice in the past is that it’s only been available to rich people.
If people have a problem sufficient to bother ChatGPT, they probably genuinely think they have a claim. When you explore their problem in detail, you might find it is actually a bit different, but it may still be a legal problem and may still be reasonable for them to have wanted to bring it to attention.
People are not generally time wasters. They’re not generally trying to make trouble.
What about the opportunity for AI to fabricate evidence on which judges have previously been able to rely—images, video, voice recordings? Where does that leave the courts?
Often, judges have to decide whether a person is telling the truth. That is the most difficult thing to do, because humans are not bad at lying. But judges make these decisions every day. There’s absolutely no difference—in scale or qualitatively—in somebody producing a false image created by AI.
The only reason we’re all getting so excited about deepfakes is because they are so new. But actually, that is the stuff of judging.
But we’re talking about a whole category of evidence that’s now somewhat compromised. Doesn’t that affect a judge’s ability to decide whether somebody is lying?
It was always thus. We always had to decide whether wills were forged, because people used to do that. It’s exactly the same with voice recordings, and video. It’s just an extension of the type of false information that is produced to the court.
People will find out when they produce fake images to the court that they are committing perjury and they will go to prison, just as if they’d forged a will.
I think we need to be cautious about predicting disaster. I’m very optimistic.
You’ve previously described an “inevitable” future where simpler civil cases are adjudicated entirely by AI. Why are you confident that’s where we’re headed?
You need to find a way to deliver justice that is within the cultural grain. That doesn’t mean you just conduct all your cases on TikTok. But if you don’t understand that people are asking LLMs for the answer to almost every question under the sun, including legal questions, you’re likely to get it wrong when you try to devise a process fit for the 21st century.
It’s all about consensus. It will only be possible to ask people to accept algorithmic decision-making if they consent to the process in a particular case, or if society decides through legislation.
When people go to court and get an adverse outcome, even if they regard the outcome as idiosyncratic or even wrong, when it’s delivered in a human way, it can be accepted over time. With AI, we have to be careful; it may be less easy for people to accept an adverse machine-driven decision.
I very much want to see a very open, international discussion about how we should resolve disputes.
I suspect part of the reason people object to trial by AI is because we can’t know precisely how a model has arrived at a decision. What’s to be done about this problem of explainability?
I don’t think it’s about reasoning; it’s about outcomes. The AI can produce very plausible reasoning. You can’t see how it produced that reasoning, but you can see the reasoning it produced, and you can judge the plausibility.
I don’t think you’ll ever do away with human judges. There’s something almost biblical about the human judge; it’s in the human psyche to want to be judged by their fellow man. But that does not mean that in some situations people wouldn’t rather have a quick outcome—even if it’s not a human outcome.
Where would you draw the line?
I don’t think judges are yet in the position to say. It’s a question for society, politicians, and legislation to resolve. That debate is really important.
I think that custody and family cases are one of the areas where essentially human judgment is expected, even by the younger generation. In complex commercial cases, I think that’s also the case. But I think we will whittle away at how commercial cases are decided by using AI to collate information to make the decision-making process better and easier.
We will allow more people access to justice more cheaply and more quickly using technology. That will be an overall good for the economy and for the people we serve.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Gem Box. All rights belong to the original author.