New Delhi: The open artificial intelligence program ChatGPT has stirred a storm since its arrival igniting again the man versus AI debate. Now, in a recent development, a judge in Colombia has admitted using the intelligent service of ChatGPT for his ruling in an autistic child’s insurance cover case, reported The Guardian.
It said that the judge admitted he used the AI tool ChatGPT when deciding whether an autistic child’s insurance should cover all of the costs of his medical treatment. He also used precedents from previous rulings to support his decision.
In his ruling, Juan Manuel Padilla concluded that the entirety of the child’s medical expenses and transport costs should be paid by his medical plan as his parents could not afford them. While the order was taken as any other case’s verdict, what shocked all is the use of ChatGPT and the inclusion of Padilla’s conversations with it.
According to the report, the legal documents show Padilla asked ChatGPT the precise legal matter at hand, “Is an autistic minor exonerated from paying fees for their therapies?”
ChatGPT responded by saying, “Yes, this is correct. According to the regulations in Colombia, minors diagnosed with autism are exempt from paying fees for their therapies.” Notably, this was the ruling Padilla gave.
However, some of Padilla’s peers criticised the use of AI in law.
Judge Padilla defended using the technology, suggesting it could make Colombia’s legal system more efficient. He also used precedent from previous rulings to support his decision, the report added.
Talking to Blu Radio, Padilla said that ChatGPT and other such programs could be useful to “facilitate the drafting of texts” but “not with the aim of replacing” judges. He also insisted that “by asking questions to the application, we do not stop being judges, thinking beings,” according to The Guardian.
The judge argued that ChatGPT performs services previously provided by a secretary and did so “in an organised, simple and structured manner” that could “improve response times” in the justice system.
The report mentions that Colombia approved a law in 2022 that suggests that public lawyers should use technologies where possible to make their work more efficient.
Colombia’s supreme court judge Octavio Tejeiro said that AI caused ‘moral panic in law’ as people feared robots would replace judges.
“The justice system should make the most of technology as a tool but always while following ethics and taking into account that the administrator of justice is ultimately a human being,” Tejeiro said. “It must be seen as an instrument that serves the judge to improve his judgment. We cannot allow the tool to become more important than the person,” he added.
Tejeiro told the Guardian he had not used ChatGPT but would consider using it in the future.
ChatGPT Response On Whether It Should Be Used For Rulings
Interestingly, while critics continue to argue over the rights and wrongs of using the bot, ChatGPT is pretty clear on it. When asked whether it should be used in the justice system, the AI tool had a different opinion from its backers.
“Judges should not use ChatGPT when ruling on legal cases … It is not a substitute for the knowledge, expertise and judgment of a human judge,” it responded to a question from the Guardian.
“Journalists should exercise caution when using quotes generated by ChatGPT in their articles,” the bot added.