Vergangene Veranstaltungen | Past Events
Inaugural Lecture "Aligning Legal Tech"
Legal Tech is made for humans. And yet it remains unclear whether humans are made for AI and algorithmic procedures applied in the legal context. Do AI and algorithmic processes in law truly align wiht the human values that underpin our legal system? How legitimate are robot courts? Are large language models aligned with human decision makers when solving hard cases? When do algorithmic procedures spark social and legal conflicts? In my inaugural lecture, I will explore the critical issues, shedding light on key facets of my research agenda.
Date: 16.12.2024 at 07:30 pm
London Workshop on School Choice
A one-day workshop to bring together researchers working on school choice.
Date: 5th July 2024
Location: City, University of London, Northampton Square, EC1V 0HB
Organisers: Claudia Cerrone (City, University of London), Yoan Hermstrüwer (University of Zurich)
Podiumsdiskussion - Künstliche Intelligenz in der Rechtsbranche: Auswirkungen, Chancen und Risiken
Wie hat KI die Rechtsbranche bereits verändert? Wie wenden Sie persönlich KI bereits an? Wo bestehen Vorteile, wo Nachteile der Technologie? Was ist rechtlich, wirtschaftlich, ethisch zu bedenken? Wie wird sich die Branche durch den Einsatz von KI verändern?
Diesen Fragen sind LegalTech-Expert:innen an einer vom Jusstudierendenverein SLTA Student Chapter Zurich organisierten Podiumsdiskussion nachgegangen.
Termin: 17. April 2024
Zeit: 18:30 – 19:40 (Diskussion), 19:40 – open ended (Apéro)
Ort: „kleine Aula“ UZH, RAA-G-01, Rämistrasse 59, 8001 Zürich
Diskutant:innen:
- Prof. Dr. Dr. Yoan Hermstrüwer, Lehrstuhl für Legal Tech, Law and Economics und Öffentliches Recht, Universität Zürich
- Dr. Alexander Wherlock, RA, Associate bei Homburger
- Paula Reichenberg, RA, CEO & Gründerin Neur.on AI, Vizepräsidentin der Swiss LegalTech Association
- Roxana Sharifi, RA, Associate bei CMS Schweiz
Having Your Day in Robot Court: The Psychology of Procedural Justice and Artificial Intelligence
New York State Bar Association
January 25, 2024, 19:00-20:30 CET (Webinar)
Should machines be judges? One powerful reason to say “no" concerns procedural justice. Citizens would see robot-led legal proceedings as procedurally unfair. Prior research has established that people obey the law in part because they see it as procedurally just, and the introduction of “robot judges” powered by artificial intelligence (“AI”) could undermine sentiments of justice and legal compliance if citizens view machine-adjudicated proceedings as less fair than the human-adjudicated status quo. We conducted two original experiments that show that ordinary people share this intuition: There is a perceived “human-AI fairness gap.”
However, the studies also show that it is also possible to reduce — and perhaps even eliminate — this fairness gap through “algorithmic offsetting.” Affording litigants a hearing before an AI judge and enhancing the interpretability of AI decisions reduce the human-AI fairness gap. Our experiments support a common and fundamental objection to robot judges: There is a concerning human-AI fairness gap. Yet, at the same time, the results also indicate that the public may not believe that human judges possess irreducible procedural fairness advantages. In some circumstances, people see a day in a robot court as no less fair than a day in a human court.