EconStor
metadata only
Can doctrine harness silicon law clerks?
Large language models have arrived in the court room: not as decision-makers, but as decision-aids. Realistically, the human judge in the loop can only do so much. What can be done to prevent the AI clerk from surreptitiously introducing ideological bias, and from being manipulated by the parties? W
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- AI Jurisprudence: Toward Automated Justice#1178091
- Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms and artificial intelligence#461715
- Using Edge Cases to Disentangle Fairness and Solidarity in AI Ethics#703643
- CONSTITUTIONAL DRIFT: Constitutional AI, Many-Shot Normalization, and a Scheduled Methodology for Detecting Value Erosion Under Extended Exposure#693034
- Algorithmic regulation and the rule of law#335659
Record · ID 983338
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive