Extract from Judge Scott Schlegel’s article “Beyond “Human in the Loop”: Experience Matters in Legal AI Usage”
As a judge deeply involved in legal technology, I’ve frequently used the phrase “keep the human in the loop” when discussing AI adoption in the law. It’s become something of a catchphrase in legal tech circles – a seemingly simple solution to the complex challenges posed by artificial intelligence in law. However, I’ve grown increasingly concerned about how this phrase is being interpreted and applied.
The problem isn’t with AI technology itself, but rather with the oversimplification of the “human in the loop” concept. When technologists and AI enthusiasts champion this as a universal solution, they often suggest that any human oversight is sufficient. This dangerous oversimplification ignores crucial factors: the quality and experience level of that human oversight.
This distinction becomes particularly critical when we consider how AI is increasingly being promoted for use in drafting legal documents, including judicial opinions. The common refrain is that as long as a human reviews and approves the AI’s output, we’re on solid ground. But this view fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of legal expertise and the institutional role of judges in our legal system.
