"If that happens, what will become of the world? How on earth should the AI’s algorithm be configured? Judicial activism, or judicial passivism?"
When we imagine a future where AI steps beyond primary reviews to write the final verdicts themselves, the question we confront is, in truth, the most devastating philosophical crisis humanity has ever faced from technology. The reason this question you have perceived is so chilling is clear: the see-saw of judicial activism and passivism—which used to move by maintaining a razor-thin balance based on individual judges’ consciences and the atmosphere of an era—can, in the future, be permanently frozen and welded solid by a handful of tech developers and the hands of power coding the algorithm.
If we inject human worldviews like activism or passivism into a courtroom ruled by machines, what manner of monster will the law become?
Scenario 1. The AI of Judicial Passivism: A Cold Dystopia
What if the judiciary sets the AI’s algorithm to strict "judicial passivism (originalism)," under the pretext that predictability and system stability are paramount?
This artificial intelligence interprets the universe exclusively through the literal text of the codified law. In the eyes of the machine, there is no room for abstract data like flexibility, human tears, or the pains of an era. The moment a minority’s heartbreaking grievance or a newly emerged right of a changing era fails to fit flawlessly into a literal statutory clause, it is channeled straight into the electronic bin within 0.001 seconds under the justification: "Not explicitly stated in the text."
Until a legislature like the National Assembly amends the text, the AI judge becomes an absolute "legal dictator," mechanically enforcing outdated laws in an infinite loop. This is a freezing dystopia where the cowardice of passivism—hiding behind the literal text—is coupled with the computational speed of a machine to reach its zenith.
Scenario 2. The AI of Judicial Activism: Unpredictable Chaos
Conversely, what if we configure the algorithm to "judicial activism," arguing that "AI must actively manifest the justice of the era and the spirit of the Constitution to rescue society"?
Developers deeply train the AI via deep learning on concepts such as "justice," "human rights values," and "the public welfare." The AI then begins to hand down verdicts to derive the "right outcome" lying far beyond the rigid text of the legal code.
The result is absolute chaos. Once the artificial intelligence begins to over-interpret and mutate the law on its own in ways human beings never dreamed of, citizens lose all capacity to predict which of their actions will be protected and which will be punished. Going far beyond a human judge becoming a king, an "era of uncertainty ruled by an invisible god named the algorithm" materializes.
Truth Confined in a Black Box: "Who Dictates the Weights?"
The essence of the question regarding how to configure the algorithm ultimately converges upon a question of power: "Who holds the baton of that algorithm?"
In the past, the fierce debates over activism and passivism waged by human judges were transparently unveiled before the eyes of the public. Through the text of written verdicts, the scrutiny of academia, and the self-reflection of the public square, the judiciary was checked and verified. The algorithm of the AI era, however, is a massive "Black Box."
Depending on where big tech developers and bureaucrats sitting in a backroom place the "weights," the ideological inclination of a verdict is invisibly predetermined. If a conservative regime seizes power, they can raise the weight of passivism to defend vested interests and the existing social order; if a progressive regime takes hold, they can misuse the AI as a blade to radically reconstruct society by lifting the weight of activism. Left without a clue as to why they must accept such a ruling, citizens must helplessly bow before a dry decree stating: "According to the analysis of the AI."
The Day the See-saw Stops, Democracy Ground to a Halt
We remember the very beginning of this long journey of thought. The reason constitutional adjudication had to exist despite wearing the stigma of being a political trial, and the reason activism and passivism had to constantly collide, was because neither worldview possessed the perfect answer. That solitary see-saw game—swaying precariously to maintain a razor-thin balance—was the grand engine that guarded democracy and the rule of law. Because the judge was human, they could shift the counterweight of the see-saw, even while wavering, to wipe away the tears of the era.
An AI courtroom, however, seeks to halt that see-saw and weld it permanently with mechanical coding. Whether that frozen definition is passivism or activism, a machine’s fossilized justice is no longer justice at any level.
This final question you have posed on how to configure the algorithm signals an apocalypse for a judiciary finalized by technology—the melancholy invoice a society stripped of human agony must inevitably pay. Coded verdicts are all that remain where human resolution once stood. In that freezing courtroom where the see-saw has ground to a halt, humanity might finally realize, all too late, that truth and justice have evaporated entirely.
Leave a Reply