Forbes Features Research From Posner and Saran Comparing AI and Human Judicial Decisions
AI Judges Follow The Law, Human Judges Follow Their Hearts, Study Reveals
A new study from University of Chicago Law School researchers has uncovered a stark contrast between AI and human judicial decision-making, potentially reshaping our understanding of technology’s role in the legal system. The research, conducted by Eric A. Posner and Shivam Saran, replicated an experiment previously run with 31 U.S. federal judges but used OpenAI's GPT-4o as the decision-maker in a simulated international war crimes appeal.
The Original Study: How Human Judges Decide
The original study, conducted by a team of legal researchers, examined how experienced legal professionals make decisions in hypothetical cases. The experiment involved 31 U.S. federal judges with an average of 17 years on the bench. These judges came from diverse jurisdictions across the country, representing a significant cross-section of the federal judiciary.
Each judge reviewed simulated appeals in international war crimes cases. The researchers created different versions of the same basic case. In some versions, they included sympathetic background information about the defendant that had no legal relevance. In other versions, they made the defendant seem unsympathetic. Separately, they also varied whether the lower court's ruling followed legal precedent or contradicted it.
Read more at Forbes