ENOIK


The court's website states that, after evidentiary proceedings, the system suggests a preliminary resolution to the arbitrator. The algorithm bases its decision on knowledge acquired on a sample of over half a million cases resolved by common courts. The arbitrator then has the chance to assess both the facts of the case and the algorithm analysis before issuing a judgment of the case.

Anna Cybulko, PhD and expert on Gender Equality Law at the European Equality Law Network, argues that humans often refrain from interfering with the results generated by algorithms due to the so-called overconfidence effect in AI tools: “We tend to use the given data as the binding data.” A second issue stemmed from the difficulty of verifying the automated systems' output, she says.

The ENOIK court puts pressure on arbitrators by promising that algorithmic support will be able to ensure the resolution of legal disputes within 40 working hours. "If a person has to work twice as fast or four times as fast as normally based on the results of the system, then this person cannot be held accountable for his or her work," she says.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Perplexity

Aphorisms: AI

DeepAI's Austen on China