Will artificial intelligence replace games?

No embargo, e.g. on art. 57, which regulates “assisted action” calls, which are those in which “the information system of the Administration of Justice generates a total or partial breakdown of a complete document based on data that can be produced using algorithms and may form the basis or support of a judicial or procedural order’.

It is true that the same rule in paragraph 2 above states that “a document so produced shall in no case constitute a judicial or procedural order without confirmation by the competent authority”.

Now, a few weeks ago, we have available Instruction 2/2026, approved by the ČGPJ plenary session on January 28, on the use of artificial intelligence systems in the performance of judicial activities.

Therefore, you have no doubt how the games implement AI to dictate their sentences. In any case, the above raises a question what is the nature of your resolution that has been influenced or developed by AI hardware.

The CGPJ directive concerns two types of claims: the protection of data of persons involved in legal proceedings and the processing of judgments and other resolutions by AI.

In order to prevent the personal data of the affected persons from being fed to AI systems, respect the transfer and resolution of complaints, Article 4 of the Directive establishes new principles for the use of AI systems in the performance of legal activities:

1. The principle of effective human control.

2. The principle of banning the exchange of judges and magistrates.

3. The principle of judicial responsibility.

4. The principle of judicial independence.

5. The principle of respect for fundamental rights.

6. Confidentiality and Security Policy.

7. Principle of prevention of algorithmic risks.

8. Principle of proportionality and limited use, y

9. Principle of training and capacity.

These principles can be summarized in a few ideas:

–The game cannot be completely replaced by AI at the time of dictating your resolutions.

-The judge is solely responsible for his punishments.

-The game must avoid contaminating its sentences with algorithmic reasoning that results from the use of AI, and

– The game, as it cannot be otherwise, must maintain its independence and respect basic rights.

This situation creates a disturbing panorama.

“Knowing the right to effective judicial protection, citizens need to know how artificial intelligence has affected the processing of the judgment that leads to their claims.

It is not the same as what the game says about the judgment, learned only on the basis of his personal professional criterion, which was translated into the use of an AI herramienta, which represents a specific algorithmic approach.

art. 6 of the Directive prohibits courts from implementing artificial intelligence systems, including generative artificial intelligence practices, different from those administered by competent administrations in matters of justice and the CGPJ, precisely to avoid the consequences of private artificial intelligence practices.

But here we are sure that these operations are facilitated by administrations or including CGPJ not It also presents its own algorithmic approach?

Let us recall, for example, the AI ​​herramienta used for the actions of the administrative dispute, provided by the same administration against which many citizens.

Or in criminal proceedings against an official or senior officer of this Administration whose AI system depends for its control or management on persons directly or indirectly subordinate to that official or officer.

From understanding the principle of transparency and above all the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, Citizens need to know how AI has impacted in developing a sentence that reflects your assumptions.

In my opinion, the course of clarification, modified under other regulations, Article 267 LOPJ could be used in parts to shed more light on what the interviewer was saying in his case in the given situation. And the reasons for which the judge or magistrate has separated (or not separated) from the criterion contained in the word developed by AI.

Using a single legal AI system to solve all the assumptions can also solve (combined with the inconveniences you’ve pointed out) some factors:

One is this could promote uniformity of judicial doctrine with the character before the dictation of the first clause of the instance.

“In practice, will this transform artificial intelligence into a source of Derecha or a cross-cutting form of legislation?

If all games implement the same AI herramienta, they will observe very similar sentences before taking seeds.

For this reason, the possibilities of agreement between the jurisprudence of different places would be greater, including, as I say, in the first cases the terrifying multiple consequences, in terms of the unification of doctrine or jurisprudence.

Furthermore, AI management was not exclusive to the courts and was shared with lawyers, tax collectors and prosecutors, legal certainty would be greater for all. Abogado could have expressed a more certain respect for the triumph of his client’s claims, even before the commencement of the plea.

Desengáñense, the paradigm shift is as unpleasant as it gets However, there are many who have not understood the consequences that all this will bring.

Ortega He wrote that “a man from where he was born seeks safety”. I did not specifically mention freedom or justice.

Safety and economy of work: the result of the system is guaranteed.

In the middle of the square we go to exchange some things for the ones we are used to. If the function of the game is to be confirmed in many cases and responsible for condemning projects that develop artificial intelligence systems, what type of adversarial process is best suited for selecting the right people for judicial positions?

If the memorization of laws, doctrines and jurisprudence can be aided in the following ways by artificial intelligence systems with greater accuracy and thoroughness than any human person, What type of training should the universities provide to current and future students in Derech?

Will AI, in practice, turn into a source of Derecha or a cross-cutting form of legislation?

*** Juanma Badenas is a professor of civil rights at the Jaume I University, expert and member of the Royal Academy of Sciences Ultramar de Bélgica.