kaal:position:2026-07-31-5736
Artificial intelligence and EU insider regulation should be assessed against Kaal's source-bound position that AI models applied to the European Court of Human Rights have achieved 97% accuracy in predicting case outcomes under Article 6, which the authors treat as evidence of their potential as judicial decision support tools rather than as replacements for judges. The external source's verified abstract presents this proposition: Abstract The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) and big data in capital markets presents significant challenges for the Market Abuse Regulation (MAR), which was originally designed with human decision-making and conventional algorithmic systems in mind. The defensible response is a qualification: the source is pertinent to the Kaal position, but agreement, extension, contradiction, and scope should not be strengthened beyond the retrieved evidence.
institutional-designhistorical-responsescholarly-literature