To really be sure would require knowing what software is actually doing - not just taking the claims made by the programmers (or more likely, the mere owners) of the proprietary software.
Judges usually don’t know this stuff, but they primarily work with systems and software supplied by the state…whose experts should know what they are doing.
My bet is that this guy decided to work on personal equipment, probably in violation of the rules. Being a judge, he’s unlikely to be sanctioned for it, and will certainly learn from the experience. If anything, there may be some internal discussions which we’ll never hear about.
Law is an area where AI can add value, though… searching through past rulings and legal opinions is tedious, and anything that can assist to find needles in haystacks would be welcome. It shouldn’t be used to write legal judgements or arguments though…
To really be sure would require knowing what software is actually doing - not just taking the claims made by the programmers (or more likely, the mere owners) of the proprietary software.
That sounds doubly difficult job.
Judges usually don’t know this stuff, but they primarily work with systems and software supplied by the state…whose experts should know what they are doing.
My bet is that this guy decided to work on personal equipment, probably in violation of the rules. Being a judge, he’s unlikely to be sanctioned for it, and will certainly learn from the experience. If anything, there may be some internal discussions which we’ll never hear about.
Law is an area where AI can add value, though… searching through past rulings and legal opinions is tedious, and anything that can assist to find needles in haystacks would be welcome. It shouldn’t be used to write legal judgements or arguments though…
Pretty sure there is such a thing as legally certified software where the liability would then lie with the software vendor.