Robot judges – not a question of legitimacy but of choice
It’s a misconception that decisions made by AI are necessarily random and irrational, as an illustrative example shows
Add BT as a preferred source
COMMUNICATION is the cornerstone of the legal profession – whether it involves preparing advice, drafting documents, or presenting arguments.
It is therefore unsurprising that the emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, which are capable of producing human-like conversational responses has sparked discourse on whether they can fully replace the legal profession.
The prevailing sentiment is that they cannot do so.
TRENDING NOW
Singapore at 61: How we can ensure opportunity, security and ownership for the next generation
With tech for fact-checking to cancer care, Singapore startups aim beyond home
Vietnam seeks US$76 billion a year from capital markets to ease reliance on banks
How BYD disrupted Singapore’s car market – and why the strategy is turning on itself
