Latest News

Why AI cannot – and should not – replace human judges

March 5, 2026 at 01:30 AM
By Alexander Tang
Why AI cannot – and should not – replace human judges
Every few months, another headline announces that artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to “disrupt” the legal profession. Lawyers, we are told, will soon be replaced by algorithms. Judges, apparently, are next, with some recent research suggesting that machines are more “accurate” in following established legal principles than human judges. While disruption will surely come, suggesting total replacement is imminent misconstrues what AI systems do and what our legal system and courts exist to...

💡Analysis & Context

Every few months, another headline announces that artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to “disrupt” the legal profession Every few months, another headline announces that artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to “disrupt” the legal profession. Lawyers, we are told, will Monitor developments in Why for further updates.

📋 Quick Summary

Every few months, another headline announces that artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to “disrupt

Every few months, another headline announces that artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to “disrupt” the legal profession. Lawyers, we are told, will soon be replaced by algorithms. Judges, apparently, are next, with some recent research suggesting that machines are more “accurate” in following established legal principles than human judges. While disruption will surely come, suggesting total replacement is imminent misconstrues what AI systems do and what our legal system and courts exist to... AdvertisementLawHong KongLaw and CrimeAlexander TangLegal Tales | Why AI cannot – and should not – replace human judgesThe limitations of large language models like ChatGPT go well beyond hallucinations, and the courtroom is no place for probabilistic guesswork3-MIN READ3-MIN ListenAlexander TangPublished: 9:30am, 5 Mar 2026Updated: 9:32am, 5 Mar 2026Every few months, another headline announces that artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to “disrupt” the legal profession. Lawyers, we are told, will soon be replaced by algorithms.Judges, apparently, are next, with some recent research suggesting that machines are more “accurate” in following established legal principles than human judges.While disruption will surely come, suggesting total replacement is imminent misconstrues what AI systems do and what our legal system and courts exist to achieve.AdvertisementThe starting point is this: insofar as we humans who designed AI can understand them, the large language models behind tools like ChatGPT are, at heart, pattern-completion machines. They ingest vast quantities of internet text and learn to predict, statistically, what word comes next.Much has already been said about “hallucination”: the tendency of these models to fabricate cases and conjure things out of thin air – a product of the predictive, pattern-completing nature of AI reasoning.AdvertisementThat problem is by now well documented and need not be rehashed at length here. It suffices to say that the issue remains unsolved. But the deeper difficulties are structural, and these deserve closer attention.AdvertisementSelect VoiceSelect Speed0.8x0.9x1.0x1.1x1.2x1.5x1.75x00:0000:001.00x
Share:

Help us improve this article. Share your feedback and suggestions.

Related Articles

Cookie Consent

We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, analyze site traffic, and serve personalized ads. By clicking "Accept", you consent to our use of cookies. You can learn more about our cookie practices in our Privacy Policy.