Human Rights Watch issued a report Friday urging a ban on the development of fully autonomous weapons. The 49-page report entitled "Making the Case: The Dangers of Killer Robots and the Need for a Preemptive Ban" detailed the various dangers of creating weapons that could think for themselves, including the concern that self-operating defense technology would remove the human element from warfare upon which most clauses of military law are bound. The organization argued machines would not be able to responsibly make the same complex tactical decisions involved in warfare and that existing laws did not adequately cover their use in combat. Human Rights Watch also contended that removing the human element of warfare raised serious moral issues, saying lack of empathy would exacerbate unlawful and unnecessary violence. The organization warned that such technology could be used by authoritarian leaders as a means of controlling and subjugating populations without fear of revolt.
For the first time, artificial intelligence has been used to predict the outcomes of cases heard at a major European court. Researchers from the University of Sheffield, the University of Pennsylvania and University College London programmed the machine to analyse text from cases heard at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and predict the outcome of the judicial decision. During tests, the AI used a machine learning algorithm to make predictions with 79 per cent accuracy. "We don't see AI replacing judges or lawyers, but we think they'd find it useful for rapidly identifying patterns in cases that lead to certain outcomes," explained Dr Nikolaos Aletras, who led the study at UCL Computer Science. "It could also be a valuable tool for highlighting which cases are most likely to be violations of the European Convention on Human Rights."
An artificial intelligence system has already successfully predicted the outcome of hundreds of cases at the European Court of Human Rights, according to rsearchers from the University College London and the universities of Sheffield and Pennsylvania who developed it. According to reports, the AI "judge" examined data sets for 584 cases, with all cases either relating to torture, degrading treatment and privacy. The algorithm analyzed the English language information for each case and then made a decision – a decision that proved to be 79 percent accurate. The vast majority of applications lodged with ECHR are deemed inadmissible, due to the fact the applications don't meet the court's required criteria. This means that each year the court receives thousands of applications it must read through to determine admissibility.
A group of researchers from the University College London (UCL), University of Sheffield, and University of Pennsylvania, created an Artificial Intelligence system to judge 584 human rights cases and had released its findings recently. The cases analyzed by the AI method were previously heard at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and were equally divided into violation and non-violation cases to prevent bias. European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France (Image Credit: ECHR) So how did the AI judge perform? Basing its judgment on the case text, the AI judge managed to predict the decisions on the cases with 79% accuracy. That means, it concurred with the decisions of human judges 8 out of 10 times.
A team of computer and legal scientists from the UK worked alongside Daniel Preoțiuc-Pietro – a postdoctoral researcher in natural language processing and machine learning from the University of Pennsylvania – to extract case information published by the ECtHR. They identified English language data sets for 584 cases relating to Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention. Article 3 forbids torture and inhuman and degrading treatment (250 cases); Article 6 protects the right to a fair trial (80 cases) and Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence" (254 cases). They then applied an AI algorithm to find patterns in the text. To prevent bias and mislearning, they selected an equal number of violation and non-violation cases.
In his prescient work on investigating the potential use of information technology in the legal domain, Lawlor surmised that computers would one day become able to analyse and predict the outcomes of judicial decisions (Lawlor, 1963). According to Lawlor, reliable prediction of the activity of judges would depend on a scientific understanding of the ways that the law and the facts impact on the relevant decision-makers, i.e., the judges. More than fifty years later, the advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) provide us with the tools to automatically analyse legal materials, so as to build successful predictive models of judicial outcomes. In this paper, our particular focus is on the automatic analysis of cases of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court). The ECtHR is an international court that rules on individual or, much more rarely, State applications alleging violations by some State Party of the civil and political rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or Convention).
An artificial intelligence algorithm has predicted the outcome of human rights trials with 79 percent accuracy, according to a study published today in PeerJ Computer Science. Developed by researchers from the University College London (UCL), the University of Sheffield, and the University of Pennsylvania, the system is the first of its kind trained solely on case text from a major international court, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). "Our motivation was twofold," co-author Vasileios Lampos of UCL Computer Science told Digital Trends. "It first starts with scientific curiosity." In other words, would it even be possible to create such an AI judge?
The judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have been predicted to 79% accuracy using an artificial intelligence (AI) method developed by researchers at UCL, the University of Sheffield and the University of Pennsylvania. The method is the first to predict the outcomes of a major international court by automatically analysing case text using a machine learning algorithm. The study behind it was published today in PeerJ Computer Science. "We don't see AI replacing judges or lawyers, but we think they'd find it useful for rapidly identifying patterns in cases that lead to certain outcomes. It could also be a valuable tool for highlighting which cases are most likely to be violations of the European Convention on Human Rights," explained Dr Nikolaos Aletras, who led the study at UCL Computer Science.
RotM Artificial Intelligence can predict the outcomes of European Court of Human Rights trials to a high accuracy, according to research published today. The use of AI has is slowly seeping into many industries including the legal sector. AI can trawl through vast amounts of information at a faster rate than humans without slowing down, making it easier for lawyers to prepare for hearings. The paper, published in PeerJ Computer Science, shows that the new software has gone one step further. It can judge the final result of legal trials based on the information in human rights cases to 79 per cent accuracy.
An artificial intelligence system designed to predict the outcomes of cases at the European Court of Human Rights would side with the human judges 79 percent of the time. Researchers at University College London and the University of Sheffield in the U.K., and the University of Pennsylvania in the U.S., described the system in a paper published Monday by the Peer Journal of Computer Science. "We formulated a binary classification task where the input of our classifiers is the textual content extracted from a case and the target output is the actual judgment as to whether there has been a violation of an article of the convention of human rights," wrote the paper's authors, Nikolaos Aletras, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Daniel Preo?iuc-Pietro and Vasileios Lampos. The system examined public court documents relating to 584 cases of violations of articles 3 (prohibiting torture), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (respect for private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been ratified by 47 European countries. The court documents have a distinctive structure, discussing first the procedure by which the case reached the court, the facts and circumstances of the case, relevant law, and the legal arguments applied.