I fear that, instead of becoming an asset in the pursuit of justice, artificial intelligence may turn into the Achilles’ heel of the judicial and legal systems—where speed replaces accuracy, data accumulation substitutes for legal knowledge, and text generation takes the place of sound reasoning.

Without a profound understanding of legal theories, doctrines, and schools of thought, without mastery of statutory interpretation, and without an appreciation of the philosophy of law, we cannot hope to achieve justice merely by accumulating court judgments, statutes, articles, and clauses and reproducing linguistic patterns. Law is not merely a collection of codified rules; it is a discipline that requires an understanding of underlying principles, purposes, competing values, and the relationship between law, justice, and humanity.

In my view, AI can serve justice only when it strengthens legal reasoning rather than replaces it. The principal danger is not merely algorithmic error, but the unquestioning reliance on machine-generated outputs by those who lack the ability to critically assess them. If a judge, lawyer, or legal scholar cannot explain the reasoning behind an argument, evaluate its validity against established legal principles, or analyse its human and legal consequences, technology will not necessarily advance justice. Instead, it may reproduce superficial thinking under the guise of scientific authority and persuasive sophistication.

Justice cannot be achieved through the accumulation of information alone. It requires understanding, reasoning, interpretation, and accountability. AI can help us find answers, but determining which answers are legally sound, ethically defensible, and just in human terms still requires critical judgment and professional responsibility.