Regulation often mandates a “human in the loop” even when technology could operate independently. This principle has become a central point in the debate on artificial intelligence (AI) applied to jurisdictional functions. During the International Congress on Artificial Intelligence and the Jurisdictional Function, held by the Global Institute of Advanced Studies (IGLOBAL), the National School of the Judiciary (ENJ), and the Center for Political and Constitutional Studies of Madrid (CEPC), the challenges posed by the development and implementation of AI systems in human activities, especially in the administration of justice, were addressed.
One of the most discussed topics is the potential disappearance of trades and careers, replaced by automated systems, and the regulations that require human supervision in all jurisdictional activities. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report estimates that 92 million jobs could disappear by 2030, especially those with repetitive and administrative tasks, while 170 million new jobs related to technology, clean energy, and digital transformation will be created (World Economic Forum, 2023).
Five job categories show high exposure to automation: manufacturing, transportation, administrative services, customer service, and retail. In law, this affects lawyers, prosecutors, and judges. Systems already exist that automate decisions, such as PretorIA in Colombia, implemented in the Constitutional Court to analyze jurisprudence and support the drafting of decisions through natural language processing (Corte Constitucional de Colombia, 2022). Another example is COMPAS in the United States, which assesses the risk of recidivism for decisions on parole, despite criticism for biases (ProPublica, 2016; State v. Loomis, 2016). In the Dominican Republic, the Supreme Court of Justice announced during the International Congress on Artificial Intelligence and the Jurisdictional Function that it had begun working on a focus group to study the utility and effectiveness of these tools within the legal framework.
Returning to the debate on automation, it is a phenomenon inherent to progress: the tractor replaced the plow, the computer displaced printing trades, and AI will transform legal practice. However, regulation imposes limits.
This principle of maintaining a “human in the loop” is not exclusive to justice; it responds to a regulatory pattern present in critical sectors. An illustrative example is aviation: although the technology for automatic takeoffs and landings has existed for decades, international standards (ICAO, FAA, EASA) require the presence of human pilots.
The reasons are consistent: management of unforeseen events, legal responsibility, and social trust. Similarly, in the administration of justice, even when AI systems can analyze jurisprudence and suggest decisions, regulation imposes significant human control to ensure transparency, ethics, and accountability. This parallelism shows that regulation is not limited to technical capacity but prioritizes legitimacy and public trust.
“It is not artificial intelligence that takes your job, it is a person trained with artificial intelligence who is likely to take your job,” commented Alfonso Peralta Gutiérrez, within the framework of the congress. It is precisely that training with artificial intelligence that will allow us as lawyers to warn against litigation, or general defense of people, those practices that violate the rights of people before its use.
It is up to lawyers, magistrates, judges, and actors of justice in general to learn from this system, in the same way that the use of Word and search tools, without which the practice would be unthinkable, became indispensable at the time.
The speed of automation highlights the importance of acquiring skills difficult to replicate by machines: critical thinking, creativity, and complex problem solving. In addition, it is crucial to stay updated on digital tools and programming languages that complement human work.
Collaboration between governments, companies, and educational systems is essential to facilitate the transition. Regulation will continue to impose the human presence in critical processes, not due to technological limitation, but for ethical, legal, and social reasons.
References:
• Corte Constitucional de Colombia. (2022). PretorIA: Artificial intelligence applied to jurisprudence. Bogotá: Constitutional Court.
• ProPublica. (2016). Machine Bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. Recuperado de https://www.propublica.org
• State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).
• World Economic Forum. (2023). The Future of Jobs Report 2023. Ginebra: WEF.
• International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). (2020). Standards and recommended methods for international civil aviation. Montreal: ICAO.
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2021). Pilot in Command Responsibilities. Washington, DC: FAA.
• European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). (2021). Flight Operations Rules. Colonia: EASA.
