If you are looking for an answer to the question What is Artificial Intelligence? and you only have a minute, then here's the definition the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence offers on its home page: "the scientific understanding of the mechanisms underlying thought and intelligent behavior and their embodiment in machines."
However, if you are fortunate enough to have more than a minute, then please get ready to embark upon an exciting journey exploring AI (but beware, it could last a lifetime) …
Lord Burnett of Maldon, the current Lord Chief Justice, has set up a new Advisory Body with the aim of ensuring that the Judiciary of England and Wales is fully informed about developments in artificial intelligence (AI). Professor Richard Susskind, President of the Society for Computers & Law, has been named chair of the body, and in a recent interview stated that AI has taken off in the last six or seven years, to the point where it has become "affordable and practical". Professor Susskind believes that the new group will start a dialogue among the judiciary about "one of the most influential technologies that there is", and recognises the importance of judges being open to the opportunities that AI technology could offer to the court system (with "practical tasks" cited as an example). The 10-person team will be made up of both senior judges (including Lord Neuberger, past President of the UK Supreme Court, and Lady Justice Sharp, Vice-President of the Queen's Bench Division), as well as leading experts on AI and law (such as Professor Katie Atkinson, past President of the International Association for AI and Law). There is little doubt that automation already plays an essential role for the legal profession, for example, in large disclosure exercises.
In 1970, Lyudmila Terentyevna Aleksandrova lost her right hand. It happened at work, where she was employed by the Russian state. With her hand gone, she fought for a disability allowance that never materialized, batted about by district and regional courts. Eventually, after decades of frustration, she brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in 2007 that there had been a violation in Aleksandrova's right to a fair trial. Pay the money, it told Russia.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford responds to a question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on her sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Christine Blasey Ford gave a detailed scientific explanation for her memory of the alleged incident involving Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh at her highly anticipated Senate testimony Thursday. Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., pressed Ford over her level of certainty that it was, in fact, Kavanaugh who allegedly pinned her down 36 years ago, while in high school, and attempted to remove her clothing. "How are you so sure that it was he?" Feinstein asked. Ford, a California-based psychology professor, laid out a detailed scientific explanation.
Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in an interview Sunday evening that until he learns more about the sexual assault allegation regarding Brett Kavanaugh, he is "not comfortable voting yes" on Kavanaugh. It's Flakes last chance to poke President Trump and the country in the eye before he rides retires and likely finds a job in the liberal media. Jeff Flake becomes the first Republican senator to call for a pause on the Kavanaugh hearings until the Judiciary Committee hears from his accuser. Kavanaugh's accuser is a far left anti-Trump activist. Over the past few days, what appeared at first to be a merely token resistance to the nomination of Trump SCOTUS pick Brett Kavanaugh has morphed into something entirely more menacing.
Very few know that the legal sector was one of the first to adopt Artificial Intelligence, with some corporate legal firms using it in some form since 2005. Even as the judiciary takes baby steps to digitise court work, lawyers across the country are using software like'Casemine', 'Mitra', 'Legitquest', 'Mike' and'Kira' for basic research, the sort of work which otherwise would have been handled by an entry-level legal associate. This analysis and retrieval of data otherwise takes an immense amount of time. Huzefa Tavawalla, who heads International Commercial Law Practice at Nishith Desai Associates, allays the fears that jobs are at stake. "That can never happen because one of the things that a machine lacks is a conscience.
We may already feel cozy about artificial intelligence making ordinary decisions for us in our daily life. From product and movie recommendations on Netflix and Amazon to friend suggestions on Facebook, tailored advertisements on Google search result pages and auto corrections in virtually every app we use, artificial intelligence has already become ubiquitous like electricity or running water.
As per the National Judicial Data Grid, over 26 Mn cases are pending across all the Local, District and High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and close to 9% of these cases are pending over 10 years or more. On average 30,000 cases are filed every day and roughly 28,000 cases are adjudicated daily.
According to a report by Tata Consultancy Services, 68% of Indian companies use artificial intelligence (AI) for IT functions, but 70% believe AI's greatest impact will be in functions outside of IT such as marketing, customer service, finance and HR by 2020. Also, the majority of companies see AI as transformative and consider it crucial to remaining competitive in future. The primary goal of all AI-enabled innovation is to minimise human labour and augment human capability to the maximum extent possible.
The Guardian recently reported on a new AI software capable of predicting the outcome of trials developed by a group of British scientists at University College London. After examining English language data sets for 584 cases relating to torture and degrading treatment, fair trials, and privacy, the AI verdict was the same as the one delivered by the court in 79% of the cases. What's the point, you may ask? Not to replace judges and juries by artificial intelligence, if that's what you fear. As the lead researcher on this project, Dr. Nikolaos Aletras, explains: "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.