‘AI can predict outcomes, but not exercise judgment’

AI can be used to assist us in better decision-making, as it amplifies our capacity and detects flaws at the same time. – 123rf.com

NO matter how intelligent machines will be, the human element is still needed when it comes to decisions involving law and judgments.

But in the long run, using artificial intelligence (AI) in our justice system will help improve the quality of judgements and avoid lengthy and expensive litigation processes.

That’s the view of the National Tech Association of Malaysia (Pikom) about sentencing guidelines using AI technology in Malaysia.

While Sabah and Sarawak are using it now in courts, plans are still in the pipeline for the system to be applied in Peninsular Malaysia.

“AI is used to assist us in better decision- making, as it amplifies our capacity and detects flaws at the same time.

“However, it also has no element of emotion or compassion which can only come from a person. At the end of the day, there is a massive difference between judgment and prediction.

“What AI systems can do is predict how judges might act, they don’t exercise judgment,” says the association whose members comprise the information and communications technology industry in Malaysia.

As such, Pikom believes a lot of consideration will still need to be looked into before deciding on a ruling.

From a technology point of view, Pikom says AI-based systems have always been used to resemble a certain degree of human intelligence, in finding, reasoning, predicting, inferencing and recommending.

“To do this, an enormous amount of data is managed, and these data are based on records put into the system.

“If data is incomplete or biased then the prediction can be inaccurate,” it points out.

Stating that AI is a tool to plough through data to see patterns and references, Pikom says on its own, AI is useless without the continuous supply of data it requires to provide the right information based on algorithms.

“In similar circumstances, if the same tasks were performed by humans, one cannot guarantee the timeline that it will take and the results derived from it may be questionable.

“The only issue here is understanding, awareness and the safe use of AI in line with court matters,” it says.

Looking to the future, Pikom believes AI will be used to a certain extent, and it will be added as an acceptable system to assess cases and assist in the judges’ decision-making.

“Issues relating to ethicality, data collection processes and analytics will be another matter for the authorities to deliberate.

“At the same time, judges will continue to practice discretion and apply compassion in their role to see fairness in sentencing,” it says.

Technically speaking, Pikom says it is relatively easy to use such AI technology in our courts.

“AI requires secure cloud infrastructure that can host AI applications, data and storage.

“Secured systems usually carry an infrastructure that is supposed to be glitch-free.

“However, upgrading the security systems and consistent maintenance of the infrastructure would also be an important element to avoid glitches,” it says.

In July last year, the judiciary issued a statement that the AI system will be tested in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions and Magistrates Courts, as well as the Shah Alam Magistrates Court in Selangor.

It said the use of sentencing guidelines using AI technology had been developed and used in the Magistrates and Sessions Courts in Sabah and Sarawak since February 2020.

“The Malaysian judiciary is always committed to ensuring the best delivery of justice for all parties, without compromising the principles of judicial freedom.

“As such, it is hoped that such an initiative will improve the quality of judgements and strengthen the judiciary as a whole,” the statement read.