Let's look at the current case of the Court of Justice of Santa Catarina; it now uses an AI-powered “robot” to act in proceedings (in the first instance of jurisdiction). The system automates procedures such as document and address searches, asset search systems and prepares “decisions”.
Of course, a judge is still needed to assess the 'result', but what cannot be philippine country code number ignored is that the system does the work that was previously only done by humans. The system, according to the court itself, already produces 23.45% more rulings and 49.9% more sentences.
And it is not only in this court; projects and implementations of mechanisms that use AI in the judiciary are spreading throughout Brazil. The STF itself has already “ordered” at least three AI systems from Big Techs, one that summarizes processes, one similar to ChatGPT for strictly legal use and a single interface that allows the electronic judicial systems of all courts to function in harmony.
If from one angle this may be good (questions about agility and technical precision in judicial decisions, if we can use the word precision without first defining it adequately), from another side, we have deeper questions to be answered.
Once again it is necessary to draw attention to the announced industrial revolution 4.0, where many jobs will be replaced (and this is what Klaus Schwab says, not me).
A recent study was published at the University of Oxford on the future of jobs in this context. The probabilistic model on the replacement of human labor by AI systems (considering 702 occupations) considered human qualities in the analysis, such as perception and manipulation, creative intelligence and social intelligence. Although the activity of judges was in an intermediate position in the replacement table (on a scale of greater and lesser probability of being replaced), one fact must be considered: the speed of evolution of AI systems and their indiscriminate implementation by the State itself (Judiciary).