Page 91 - วารสารกฎหมาย ศาลอุทธรณ์คดีชํานัญพิเศษ

ฉบับพิเศษ ประจำ�ปี 2564

that would otherwise take many human beings to undertake with a much longer time.
For instance, machine translation of documents where the algorithms allow the computer

to work rapidly in identifying words and sentences, matching them against its dictionary-
database, counterchecking against a set of data containing ‘grammatical rules’ which

have been trained by human to teach the AI to translate it more accurately. This way,
the machine can distinguish ‘dying to see you’ being relating to eager anticipation to
meet someone rather than to do with death.

However, could AI wholly substitute human arbitrators? Rather, we should ask

ourselves first whether in an arbitration or litigation we are willing to be subjected to
the procedures of feeding our pleadings and arguments into a machine for it to churn
out an outcome basing on algorithms. The use of AI in decision making has been cited

to include advanced case-law search engines, assistance in drafting needs, analysis and
categorisation of contracts according to criteria and detection of divergence or
incompatibility. These are not tasks out of science fiction books or films but in fact,
11
they are helpful tools where without which, it will take laborious efforts manually.
At its most basic level, automation and machine assistance could perform beneficial
‘smart’ tasks such as data analytics in dispute resolution, for instance, to compare data,

locate specific keywords from within documents or emails and perform data analysis.
The use of AI in judicial decision-making is also largely thought not to be making the

decision or providing legal reasoning but as tools to identify the ‘correlations between
different parameters of a decision.’ This can also be helpful in international arbitration
12
which commonly involved arbitrators having to deal with governing laws of the

contractual dispute which are foreign to them.

Another aspect is ‘predictive justice’ where AI due to its ability to process a vast
amount of judicial decisions rapidly to generate the outcome in a particular case.
In a report by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, predictive justice is said

11 Council of Europe, ‘European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) European Ethical
Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment’ <https://rm.coe.int/ethical-
charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c> para 15
12 ibid 29.

89