kaal:claim:5541658-016

Keeping judges ultimately accountable through a human-in-the-loop review of AI generated reasoning, as practiced in Shenzhen, does not fully resolve the accountability problem in AI assisted adjudication.

Shenzhen case study illustrates that judges retain ultimate accountability, revising AI-generated reasoning to ensure accurate judgments, but this human-in-the-loop approach does not fully resolve the issue.

Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025), Accountability in AI Judicial Functions, p. 22
https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658 · source PDF

Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658

• judicial settings where AI drafts or supports reasoning that a human judge then reviews

failuresupport: arguedfailure: incomplete accountability under human-in-the-loopfamily: ai-oversight-and-alignment-gapai-and-agentslaw-and-legal-systems

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is e543a2d698fcd522d4d02e034cc9ee1344d0015d2c824b40b9e05ab7c0728c60. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/96db8efbe1e2c705...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5541658-016.md | sha256sum