A debate over the technical nature of AI and its role in human life highlights some of the same issues that we should be considering for AI’s role in the legal system
A recent post by Thomas Wolf of Hugging Face, challenging certain points made by Dario Amodei of Anthropic, has captured the attention of many. The debate is focused on the future of scientific discoveries, but it holds some relevance for the legal profession.
This article was written by Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell, and you also can listen to her recent podcast interview here
Let’s start with a brief overview of the two posts.
In an essay entitled, Machines of Loving Grace: How AI Could Transform the World for the Better, Amodei describes “a country of geniuses in a datacenter.” He envisions very powerful AI that is “smarter than a Nobel Prize winner across most relevant fields,” skilled enough to “prove unsolved mathematical theorems,” and capable of directing experiments and executing many tasks fully autonomously. Noting the current slow pace of groundbreaking discoveries in biology and medicine, Amodei lands at his central point: “powerful AI could at least 10x the rate of these discoveries, giving us the next 50-100 years of biological progress in 5-10 years.”
He refers to this as the “compressed 21st century” because the progress of the entire 21st century will be possible within a few years. According to Amodei, this progress includes reliable prevention and treatment of nearly all natural infectious diseases, elimination of most cancers, prevention of Alzheimer’s, and the potential to double our lifespan. Amodei admits his vision is radical, but believes most people underestimate “just how radical the upside of AI could be.”
Wolf then challenges Amodei’s vision. In his blog post, The Einstein AI Model, Wolf argues that today’s systems are fundamentally constrained by their training data. He describes AI models as very “obedient students,” but not genius revolutionaries capable of true paradigm shifts. To create a data center of true geniuses — Einstein-level geniuses — Wolf argues, “we don’t just need a system that knows all the answers, but rather one that can ask questions nobody else has thought of or dared to ask.”
What does this debate say about law?
The Amodei-Wolf debate, while focused on the technological possibilities of AI, led me to a different question: beyond what AI can do, what will we choose for it to do in our legal system?
Even assuming Amodei is right — that AI models will become capable of true genius — do we want those geniuses deployed in all aspects of law? Amodei ponders whether powerful AI could “improve our legal and judicial system by making decisions and processes more impartial[.]” However, impartiality alone doesn’t guarantee justice. Can AI, however brilliant, truly understand the human condition and context that shapes legal outcomes? And what relevance do Wolf’s observations hold in the legal context? Is there a need for more than just answers? Do we also need legal professionals who ask the questions that “nobody else has thought of or dared to ask”?
Think of Brown v. Board of Education, for example. Thurgood Marshall’s triumph was far more than a mechanical application of the law. It was a strategic challenge to decades of entrenched precedent, driven by a profound moral imperative. This required more than information-processing, it demanded the uniquely human courage to confront the status quo and the ingenuity to forge a new path.
The inherent duality of the law
This is where the legal field reveals its inherent duality. On the one hand, our work involves the methodical processing of vast datasets. We collect data (facts, evidence, legal precedent), we analyze this data, and then we generate new data — a process that mirrors the capabilities of generative AI models like ChatGPT and suggests that certain aspects of our work are ripe for automation.
On the other hand, many of our core functions — deeply rooted in human qualities — decisively counsel against AI overreliance. For instance:
-
-
- Judgment & discretion — The law is not a rigid set of rules. Indeed, many of our balancing tests call for the inexact weighing of various factors, requiring the careful exercise of judgment and discretion.
- Advocacy & persuasion — Legal practice is about representing clients and persuading others. This requires empathy, emotional intelligence, and the ability to connect with human decision-makers — a judge, a jury, or opposing counsel. AI might mimic human connection, but it cannot truly achieve it because of course, it is not human.
- Adapting to novelty — New technological, economic, and social frameworks require legal professionals to think creatively and adapt to situations with no precedent. Consider the rise of social media and its impact on the collection of evidence. Or the need to adapt established legal and regulatory frameworks to entirely new financial instruments. Current AI is trained on past data and may struggle with the truly new.
- Careful reasoning & societal attunement — While the legal system must not be swayed by fleeting whims of public opinion, it also must possess the capacity to evolve alongside shared norms. This adaptation requires careful reasoning about justice and fairness; and, in light of changing social structures and values, we need to ensure the law remains both grounded in principle and responsive to societal needs.
-
Thus, while many of our tasks are amenable to automation, much of our work demands a uniquely human perspective. As AI becomes more capable and integrated into our workflows, the defining question will not be, “What can AI do in the legal profession?” But rather, “What should AI do in the legal profession?”
The Amodei-Wolf debate is a helpful reminder that AI is advancing quickly, and our choices will be critical. We cannot resign ourselves to the inevitability of AI; instead, we must approach it with a clear-eyed understanding of our agency. By defining clear boundaries, establishing ethical frameworks, and carefully integrating AI where appropriate, we can ensure it serves as a powerful instrument for justice, not a force that undermines it.
You can find out more about how courts are using AI to improve efficiency and access to justice here
