A Colombian judge resolved a case on the right to health of an autistic child with the help of the ChatGPT robot, being the first sentence to be drafted based on artificial intelligence in the country.
“It is a huge window, today it can be ChatGPT, but in three months it can be any other alternative that makes it easier to write texts and that the judge leans on them, not with the aim of replacing it,” said the judge of the case, Juan Manuel Padilla, in an interview with Blu Radio.
The ruling dated January 30 resolved a mother’s request for her autistic son to be exempted from paying for medical appointments, therapies and transportation to hospital centers, since the family does not have the economic resources to take care of it.
Padilla ruled in favor of the minor and in the sentence reveals that questioned the chatbot ChatGPT to support its decision.
“Is an autistic minor exempted from paying moderator fees for his therapies?” asks the judge and the application responds: “Yes, that is correct. According to the regulations in Colombia, minors diagnosed with autism are exempt from paying moderator fees in their therapies.
The sentence records four similar questions and answers.
“The judges are not stupid, by the fact of asking questions to the application we do not stop being judges, of being thinking beings”, explains Padilla.
According to the robed, ChatGPT does what “a secretary” used to do, “in an organized, simple, and structured way,” which “could improve response times in the judicial branch.”
But Professor Juan David Gutiérrez from the Universidad del Rosario contradicted him and launched the debate on Twitter. In a message thread the academic asks the same questions as the judge, but gets different answers.
“As it happens with other AI in other areas, under the narrative of a supposed efficiency, fundamental rights are put at risk,” he warned.
Since November ChatGPT artificial intelligence spreads around the world with supporters and skeptics.
Created by the Californian company OpenAI, the conversational robot works on algorithms and mountains of data.
Lawyers, engineers, journalists and other professionals wonder if this type of AI could replace them.
“I suspect that a lot of my colleagues are going to join this and start to Ethically build their sentences with the help of artificial intelligence”, launched Padilla.
According to María Cristina Londoño, a professor at the Faculty of Economic and Administrative Sciences of the University of America, part of the objectives pursued with the development of artificial intelligence is to facilitate the review of hundreds of judicial precedents that can be applied to the case that is intended to expedite.
But the teacher also warns that the big question that is now being generated lies in the suitability of technology to use information that is not yet conceived as being able to be processed without the intervention of the director of the process. Well, judges are obliged to apply discernments that require assessments of equality, dignity, justice, probity and good faith, among other aspects that still cannot be guaranteed with the use of artificial intelligence.
ChatGPT creators work on a tool to tackle the dangers of its artificial intelligence
OpenAI is working on its own tool that detects whether a text has been written by a person or by a text generation model such as ChatGPT, although for the moment it does not stand out for its precision.
The tool “aims to help mitigate false claims that AI-generated text was written by a human”the company has explained in a statement sent to TechCrunch and collected by Europa Press.
This launch follows the concern that ChatGPT has generated since its appearance in November, for being very efficient when it comes to generating coherent texts and with a high writing capacity, which has made alarm bells especially in educational and academic fields.
The OpenAI tool, however, is not yet accurate, hovering around a 26% success rate. “It still has a number of limitations, so it should be used as a complement to other methods to determine the source of the text instead of being the main tool for decision making,” they point out.