Should Judges be replaced by ChatGPT?
To ensure that only fair and lawful judgments are handed down
(2 votes)
Loading...
(2 votes)Loading...
(2 votes)Loading...Similar Posts
Keyboard key sometimes not working?
One of the keys on my mechanical keyboard isn't working properly anymore. Especially in games, it sometimes doesn't respond at all or responds with a delay. The keyboard is very old and has taken a beating. Water even got on it once. I have no idea what kind of switches they are—some yellow ones. What…
Will my save games be deleted?
Byantegrle
Hello, I'm planning on completely resetting my PC. Will my Steam saves be deleted?
Favorite job = too little pay?
Hello, It's a strange question, I know. but; what would you do if your favorite job was “too poorly paid”? EDIT: Where would you get the motivation for another job, for example, if it isn't your favorite job? LG
What exactly could be the reason?
Bydeha227
Hey, I'm wondering why, when I'm playing something, the game just freezes out of nowhere and I can't do anything. I can't even access the task manager. Instead, I have to completely shut down the computer using the power button. The drivers and temperatures are all OK I have two drivers here 23.11.1 and 23.12.1…
How difficult is a CompTIA certificate?
Source: IT Basics (comptia.org) I'm 19 and completed a standard retail apprenticeship, but I'm not satisfied with it. I know I have much more potential, and the world of IT is no stranger to me. I want to get CompTIA ITF+ and A+ certifications to get into IT support, but I need to prove my…
what a weak mind
No, because ChatGPT is trained by data coming from people. This means that ChatGPT will accordingly represent people’s opinion.
Yes, then you can let Musk and Microsoft decide who is sentenced and who is not
An AI can’t weigh.
She can only count.
Short and short hit in the black!
And she calculates based on how this was trained
Better said: how investors want to train
Directing = judge?
If this is the case, NO:
The human factor must be taken into account and legal goods must be weighed against each other. And this will never be possible because it is not a human being and will never be able to think and act humanly.
Not much.
But would be very modern and would totally fit into today’s time.
But then also all the parties involved in the whole proceedings incl. Complaints and witnesses.
Only the defendant remains human.
The judge among the bots may then make a judgment on the basis of the statements made by the other bots. Here is an example of highly processed information from the other bots, which he has available in the precipitation of judgment:
plaintiff’s lawyer: “Pups”
Advocate of the accused: “Lol”
Witness: “The cake was not vegan.”
Witness 2: “404 not found”
–> Judge: “Pups nothing lol. prison.”
Good Luck to the one who sits on the accusation bench in front of all the talking bins 🙂
This is pretty much the worst proposal 2025.
Considering that ChatGPT’s data source is the INTERNET for learning and we know exactly what the Internet feels like fair, the thought is shining.
So no, clear no.
This is not comparable. Finally, the AI also shatters
for people who just get a bit of ancestry,
good essays together.
That’s the problem. For school articles that do not have any special consequences “good enough”, for legal speech that can later destroy careers and lives, that is what ChatGPT currently cannot be sufficient.
ChatGPT is not intelligent, it is simply a complex algorithm that by means of stochastic touches on the most likely best solution with the help of a scoring system, and all this then packed so that it acts human.
You should not be denounced by such things.
I gave a few legal tasks to an AI. Got some mistakes.
No, because ChatGPT is not capable of logic, and does not understand evidence or connections.
With logic, the lawyers have not, and what a
Legally calls a proof that a naturalist would
only laugh, let alone a mathematician.
ChatGPT cannot know if something is wrong or correct…
That is why it is not a matter of jurisdiction.
How do you know the AI can do that?
One of my first “real” questions to ChatGPT was a question about German educational law, where I was no longer sure what legal text my (now unknown problem) dealt with.
ChatGPT then proposed the “Saxon Vocational Training Act” (short: SächsBbiG).
Since then, I know how little ChatGPT is.
Nope!
The variety of reasons that speak for or against a judgment cannot capture a computer that leaves only a judgment!
How does the AI want to know what fair and compliant judgments are if you are not programmed by people?
ChatGPT takes its information from the web. Judgments are deposited there that people like. If they are not fair, ChatGPT would also be able to make unfair judgments.
Then you should first program ChatGPT just and independently.
No.
Can’t be taken seriously, judge. Or how many trans judges do you know?
This is about inclusion, and ARD and ZDF are right. Please be fair to others
That’s too far. And no people should not do that
They’re not infallible for a long time and they can’t stick.
So I don’t think the judge is infallible, but there’s one who’s liable and just stands for his decision with his name
we mean you
They stand there with their names…
‘Righting’…. better leave it. You misuse the Gerundiv.
Towards do not 😂 what do you think? who decide as they are on the day and then remain silent forever
What are you supposed to be “sighting” and why should you replace them?
He doesn’t dare to write ‘Richter’ in generic masculine. Woke.
Maybe you should wake up or you’ll stay a sleep sheep forever