Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Judge and the Computer: How Best 'Decision Support'?

The Judge and the Computer: How Best 'Decision Support'? 290 DR. PHILIP LEITH thesis of this paper is a restatement of this argument: those who wish to provide judicial decision support systems would be well advised to heed any lessons which might be learned from the problems of user acceptance. It may be that there are many ‘expert systems’ which are presently in day-to- day usage. However, given the fact that there is a distinct lack of confidence in any definition of what an ‘expert system’ is and indeed which programs demonstrate ‘artificial intelligence’, any discussion of the success of AI and expert systems in general is difficult to conclude. In law though, the situation is clearer: all those ‘expert systems’ which have been built in the academic environment have not moved successfully over to the workplace. Many in AI will not agree with this, but it is a firm position I take which has not yet been proven incorrect by the evidence available – see the Appendix to this article. In this paper, I want to revisit the arguments against what I described as ‘for- malist’ approaches and suggest that the current debate about ‘decision support’ is simply the rerunning of old approaches which were found in http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Artificial Intelligence and Law Springer Journals

The Judge and the Computer: How Best 'Decision Support'?

Artificial Intelligence and Law , Volume 6 (4) – Oct 16, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-judge-and-the-computer-how-best-decision-support-SMCC8vX6UL
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Computer Science; Artificial Intelligence (incl. Robotics); International IT and Media Law, Intellectual Property Law; Philosophy of Law; Legal Aspects of Computing; Information Storage and Retrieval
ISSN
0924-8463
eISSN
1572-8382
DOI
10.1023/A:1008226325874
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

290 DR. PHILIP LEITH thesis of this paper is a restatement of this argument: those who wish to provide judicial decision support systems would be well advised to heed any lessons which might be learned from the problems of user acceptance. It may be that there are many ‘expert systems’ which are presently in day-to- day usage. However, given the fact that there is a distinct lack of confidence in any definition of what an ‘expert system’ is and indeed which programs demonstrate ‘artificial intelligence’, any discussion of the success of AI and expert systems in general is difficult to conclude. In law though, the situation is clearer: all those ‘expert systems’ which have been built in the academic environment have not moved successfully over to the workplace. Many in AI will not agree with this, but it is a firm position I take which has not yet been proven incorrect by the evidence available – see the Appendix to this article. In this paper, I want to revisit the arguments against what I described as ‘for- malist’ approaches and suggest that the current debate about ‘decision support’ is simply the rerunning of old approaches which were found in

Journal

Artificial Intelligence and LawSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 16, 2004

References