For the first time, a Dutch judge uses ChatGPT in a verdict, experts are shocked
This is the first time in the Dutch judiciary that a judge has used ChatGPT as a source of information for a judgment. A district judge in Gelderland asked the popular AI a question for a judgment in a legal dispute between two homeowners. The judge later reproduced part of the AI chatbot's answer in his verdict, AD reports.
This is the first time in the history of the Dutch judiciary that AI chatbots have been used to reach a verdict. AI experts such as Henk van Ess are dismayed by the incident. In his opinion, this incident should be considered a special case. "It is unacceptable for a district judge to base compensation partly on a voice computer," van Ess tells the newspaper.
The district judge used ChatGPT to determine the efficiency of solar panels in a dispute between two homeowners. The two homeowners got into a clinch. One of them was adding a floor to his house, which caused the neighbor to worry about whether his solar panels would lose efficiency because the house would overshadow them. In June, the Gelderland judge handed down a ruling in which he used the chatbot to determine the average lifespan of solar panels.
"Based in part on ChatGPT, the district court estimated the average life of 2009 solar panels to be 25 to 30 years; therefore, that life is set here at 27.5 years," the ruling states, according to AD. The district judge also apparently used ChatGPT to determine the current average price per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
For AI expert Van Ess, this ruling is a real disaster, as the question of the lifespan of solar panels is not easy to answer and is a complicated and complex issue. As a result, many experts in the field disagree. Some think that solar modules last a maximum of 25 years, while others say that a solar panel can be used for 40 years.
"You can't just state a lifespan of X based on ChatGPT. I am appalled by so much ignorance and hope that other judges do not secretly use the same methodology," he told the newspaper. The internet expert is calling on the judiciary to investigate whether this case is an exception or whether more judges are using ChatGPT. Accordingly, stricter guidelines should be introduced.
According to the Gelderland District Court, the judge did not use ChatGPT as a guideline for his decision. Therefore, the chatbot's response did not play a role in the final judgment, according to a spokeswoman for the court. The judge merely used ChatGPT as "one of the sources for a reasonable estimate." "However, this data was not the deciding factor in dismissing the case," the district court later stated.
Even if ChatGPT is not said to have played a decisive role, many legal experts and judges remain skeptical about the reliable and justified use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary.
