arXiv AI
Man and machine: artificial intelligence and judicial decision making
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 12
Do Judges Behave Like Algorithms?
arXiv:2608. 10400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What if judges already behave like algorithms?
arXiv AI
Sep 10
Ordinary, Reasonable Chatbots: Do AI Models Track Human Legal Judgments?
The paper investigates whether large language model (LLM) chatbots can emulate human legal judgments of reasonableness. By comparing responses from 26 LLMs to those of human participants across 25 legal scenarios, the study finds that chatbots generally track human answers but tend to produce more homogeneous, government‑ and corporation‑friendly responses and align more closely with white, male, older, and more educated respondents. The authors note that these patterns warrant further systematic research.
arXiv AI
Jul 28
Visible to the Court: How AI Is (and Isn't) Litigated in U.S. Federal Court Opinions
arXiv:2607. 23888v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In the United States, artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly deployed amid limited federal regulation.
arXiv AI
Sep 1
Statutory AI: Aligning Large Language Models With Legal Norms
arXiv:2608.28593v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: With the increasing development of AI regulatory frameworks, ensuring that artificial intelligence systems, particularly generative models, operate in...
arXiv AI
Jun 24
Legal Reasoning Is Not Lawyering: Rethinking Legal Benchmarks for Pro Se Access to Justice
arXiv:2606. 23716v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Legal AI benchmark research frequently invokes the assumption that large language models can improve access to justice, including for people who cannot access lawyers in order to understand and exercise their legal rights.
arXiv AI
Aug 24
Can Legal AI Know When It Is Wrong? And Do Students Know When It Is?
The study examines how Large Language Models (LLMs) can exhibit an ‘inertia of confidence’, giving incorrect legal verdicts with high certainty, and tests this on Indian Contract Act cases. Phase I audits ChatGPT, Meta AI, and Perplexity AI, introducing the High‑Confidence Error Rate (HCER) to measure dangerous certainty, finding Meta AI most prone to errors. Phase II surveys 380 Indian law students, revealing that exposure to hallucinated citations increases verification efforts but most students lack formal ethical AI training.