‎Brazil News

 

 

 

A survey conducted by the CNJ revealed that 27% of judges use artificial intelligence tools in their professional activities, while among civil servants this number is 31%. The data is part of the study The use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary.

 

Although use is relatively sporadic - with 70% of respondents stating that they use it "rarely" or occasionally - the survey indicates a growing interest in the adoption of AI in the Judiciary.

 

Most judges and civil servants expressed a high belief in the usefulness of generative AI, especially in tasks involving information technology, data analysis and search for case law, identified as one of the main areas in which the tool can be applied effectively.

 

Researchers Gomes Pessoa, from the  DPJ/CNJ -  Department of Judicial Research, and  a professor at USP, shared data collected from responses from 1,681 judges and 16,844 civil servants. Although it is not possible to extend the results to the entire Judiciary, due to the lack of a sampling technique, the information collected provides a relevant basis for the formulation of judicial policies.

 

 

 

CNJ survey shows that 70% of courts rarely use AI. ]

Tools

 

Among the tools most used by respondents is ] with 96% adoption among judges and 94% among civil servants. Also notable are Copilot, from Microsoft, and Gemini, from Google. The survey revealed that most users opt for free or open versions of these tools.

 

However,  warned about the risks associated with these systems, such as inaccuracies and the difficulty in distinguishing their responses from those produced by humans, highlighting the importance of reviewing and validating the results.

 

Even with limited use of AI, 27% of judges and 31% of civil servants use the tool in their professional activities. The survey also indicated a growing interest in adopting AI among those who do not yet use it at work. Most participants believe in the potential of generative AI to support tasks in the Judiciary, especially in areas involving information technology, statistics and data science.

 

The survey highlighted that 67.8% of judges and 59% of civil servants consider the use of AI to be appropriate for searching case law. However, Professor emphasized that, although the tool can be useful for research, it is essential that there is a careful review of the results to ensure the accuracy of the information.

 

Furthermore, the study revealed a great interest among judges and civil servants in receiving training and qualification in the area, since the lack of familiarity with Artificial Intelligence was identified as one of the main difficulties faced.

 

AI Regulation in the Judiciary

 

The results of the research were presented during the public hearing held at the CNJ headquarters in Brasília on Wednesday, the 25th, which will continue until Friday, the 27th, and will be attended by experts and representatives of institutions that debate the regulation of the use of generative AI in the Judiciary. The proposed normative act, which deals with the regulation of AI systems based on large language models, is being discussed by the participants.

 

Luiz Fernando Bandeira de Mello, CNJ advisor and coordinator of the Working Group on Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary, highlighted the importance of the event to promote transparency and involve the community in the regulatory process. STJ Minister Ricardo Villas  Cueva also reinforced the need to review CNJ Resolution 332/20 , to adapt the use of generative AI with new security and governance guidelines.

 

 

Advances in the Judiciary

 

The president of the STF, Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, has already defended the use of artificial intelligence in the Judiciary, stating that the technology could one day write sentences. Barroso listed how the Supreme Court already uses AI in its daily routine, such as in grouping cases by type or in classifying cases in theses of general repercussion.

 

He added next steps, saying the Court is working on developing a tool capable of locating precedents and that, in the future, he believes judgments could be written by computers.

 

Soon, I'm sure we'll have artificial intelligence writing the first draft of sentences ," said the Supreme Court president.  AI can, for example,  "reproduce the prejudices that exist in society, because it is fed by human beings ,said Barroso. 

 

There are many risks and a discussion about regulating AI to protect fundamental rights and democracy. The Supreme Court president stressed that AI is still unable to distinguish right from wrong or have common sense, and therefore depends on human supervision.

 

Robots in decisions

 

At the beginning of the year, the  TJ/SC presented a new robot equipped with artificial intelligence to work in the routines of the first-degree jurisdiction. In addition to performing automation tasks already performed by robots, such as queries on death certificates, addresses, and access to Central Bank and  systems, the new tool, called "Auxiliary Robot", is capable of proposing drafts of orders, decisions and sentences, using algorithms that simulate human interaction.

 

The use of algorithms will speed up the progress of legal proceedings, resulting in benefits for citizens and allowing civil servants and judges to have more time for complex tasks. The project began to be developed last year, aiming to support the offices of the State Banking Court.

 

Tools

 

In August, Barroso signed a technical cooperation agreement with the TRT of the 4th region for the joint development of the  system. This tool, created by the TRT-4 Innovation Laboratory, uses artificial intelligence to assist judges in drafting decisions, automating bureaucratic tasks and conducting case law research related to cases. 

 

Currently in its pilot phase,  generates draft reports for labor court rulings using artificial intelligence. These reports include a summary of the requests, the identification of the parties and the facts presented. The tool also searches for previous decisions by the STF, STJ and other courts in the country.

 

Using  saves time when drafting sentences, allowing judges to edit, validate, reject or adapt the suggested text. The tool, however, does not perform legal analyses of the requests nor produce the draft of the final decision, focusing only on reducing bureaucratic tasks and eliminating repetitive manual searches.

 

 link: https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/416017/27-dos-magistrados-usam-ia-nas-atividades-aponta-pesquisa-do-cnj