D'Aietti-III Convegno Internazionale di Giustizia predittiva (Organizz. Scuola di Diritto Avanzato)

Summary

The transcript discusses the application of algorithms in legal interpretation and decision-making, highlighting the importance of understanding the mathematical models behind them. It emphasizes the need for a specialized approach in various legal sectors, such as family law, and the potential for predictive analytics in administrative discretion. The speaker shares their experience in developing a method to evaluate discretionary spaces, pointing out the challenges in the collaboration between legal experts and computer analysts. The conversation also touches on the national strategy for artificial intelligence in Italy, advocating for a rights-embedded approach that anticipates the integration of legal analysis in the design phase of AI systems.

Takeaways

• 📚 The speaker is a professor of computer science and law, with experience as a tribunal president, emphasizing the importance of algorithms in legal interpretation.
• 🔍 The discussion revolves around the concept of going beyond Article 12 and the interpretation of law through algorithms, which is the main focus of Professor Viola's work.
• 💡 The speaker highlights the need to move beyond mere interpretation and to explore the potential of algorithms in legal decision-making, particularly in the context of discretionary behaviors and predictability.
• 🧠 There is a mention of the 'dark matter' of discretion, referring to the intangible and unpredictable nature of discretionary power in administrative law.
• 🔧 The speaker's analysis led to the ambition of creating a method for evaluating the predictability of legal decisions, especially in specialized sectors where the general context is already focused on specificities.
• 📈 The speaker's work involves navigating through family law and using statistical and computational analysis to predict outcomes in cases of separation, divorce, and economic issues related to these matters.
• 📊 The use of the Gaussian curve ('curva di credibilità') is discussed as a tool for analyzing the core of real decisions, which has been applied in many sectors involving discretion.
• 🤖 The importance of a close relationship between lawyers and the development of algorithms is emphasized, as well as the need for lawyers to understand the computational mindset to effectively communicate with analysts and programmers.
• 🚀 The speaker has already implemented a system that analyzes separations and divorces, assigning average tendency values, which is a practical application of the discussed methodology.
• 🌐 The conversation touches on the national strategy for artificial intelligence, highlighting the Italian approach to embedding AI with fundamental rights and the need for lawyers' input during the design phase.
• 📝 The speaker concludes by stressing the value of computational thinking in legal culture, not just as a technical skill, but as a methodological approach to enhance transparency and accountability in algorithmic decision-making.

Q & A

What is the main focus of the speaker's discussion?

The main focus of the speaker's discussion is the application of algorithms and mathematical models in the interpretation and prediction of legal outcomes, particularly in the context of discretionary behaviors in law.

How does the speaker describe the starting point of their analysis?

The speaker describes the starting point of their analysis as going beyond the interpretation of law through algorithms, which is the battleground of Professor Viola, and exploring the concept of discretionary behavior in legal decisions.

What is the significance of the 'curve of belief' or 'Gaussian curve' mentioned by the speaker?

The 'curve of belief' or 'Gaussian curve' is significant as it represents the heart of true decisions, taking the core of real decisions and applying mathematical analysis to understand and predict legal outcomes based on statistical frequency and computational calculations.

What does the speaker suggest about the role of jurists and analysts in the development of algorithms?

The speaker suggests that jurists and analysts should have a close relationship in the development of algorithms. Jurists should analyze procedures and construct mental models, while analysts should study the sector they are not familiar with and understand the fundamental elements that programmers may not fully grasp.

How does the speaker address the issue of transparency in algorithms?

The speaker addresses the issue of transparency by emphasizing the need for jurists to be able to dictate and control the level of transparency in algorithms, ensuring that the decision-making process is understandable and accountable.

What is the speaker's view on the potential of computational thinking in the legal field?

The speaker sees computational thinking as a valuable addition to legal culture, not just as a means to program but as a method to measure, evaluate, and communicate with those who develop computer systems, thus reducing errors and enhancing the legal decision-making process.

What is the speaker's stance on the predictability of legal outcomes?

The speaker believes in the predictability of legal outcomes, especially in areas such as family law, where statistical analysis and computational calculations can provide a measure of equity and predict tendencies in legal decisions like separations and divorces.

How does the speaker propose to bridge the gap between legal experts and computational analysts?

The speaker proposes a methodological approach where legal experts and computational analysts work closely together, with the legal expert providing a deep understanding of the law and the analyst applying this knowledge to develop algorithms that are both sophisticated and transparent.

What is the speaker's view on the role of artificial intelligence in the future of Italian law?

The speaker envisions a future where artificial intelligence plays a significant role in Italian law, enriching it with a variety of applications and methodologies that can lead to an evolution of jurisprudence and a more equitable legal system.

What does the speaker suggest as a necessary skill for legal professionals in the context of algorithmic analysis?

The speaker suggests that legal professionals need to learn computational thinking and methods to effectively communicate with computational analysts and to ensure that the algorithms developed are accurate and reflective of the legal nuances.