Justice was never neutral; it was always human—and therefore imperfect.
Artificial Intelligence comes to “perfect” it, removing the only element that kept it within human limits: empathy.
If the future belongs to AI, the real question is not whether decisions will be fairer, but whether humanity can endure a justice that does not forgive.
A judge is human. With everything that it means to carry flesh and soul exposed to the irreversible laws of nature. And “to err” is also a human trait. The judge is no exception.
Yes, but try telling this to someone anxiously awaiting the verdict in their case. It is hardly a convincing argument. Nor will the wronged party ever accept the explanation of a mistaken—but… natural—decision. This too is a human and irreversible trait of the wronged.
This is precisely why a human being and a perfectly just judge cannot coexist. Even worse, when beyond innate traits we add acquired ones:
a. The binding obligation of the judge to apply the Law, a product of power, of the prevailing political system and regime.
b. Ideological fixations, beliefs and opinions, burdens of every kind upon thought and conscience, personal needs, weaknesses, traumas, ambitions, and interests. All these, in addition to the constraints of nature which man cannot shed, immediately shape the image of the “finite” judge and the quality of his judgment.
The Greek judge, in both high and low ranks, like his colleagues across the world, carries these burdens as well. It would be strange if he were an exception. Laden with ideological constructs, mainly of the conservative doctrine “fatherland, religion, family,” in percentages exceeding 80% within the profession, he does not have to struggle much with his judgment, given that the path is already paved and safe. If his beliefs do not fit or assist in the cases he handles, he easily “turns to the letter of the law.” He applies the mandate, and his conscience, career advancement, and—certainly—generous earnings coexist smoothly and harmoniously.
If, on the other hand, a specific law contradicts his own beliefs, a convenient cocktail of legality drawn from the rich reservoir of global originality within the Greek chaos of over-legislation—combined, of course, with his… moral sensitivity—often produces tragicomic results, to the glory of the national sport of carelessness and irresponsible responsibility, even within the field of justice. Yet, our compatriot judge has achieved the impossible: to “carry two or three watermelons under the same arm”! How is this possible? It is one of the magical tricks performed in the open circus of a Banana Republic under the euphonious and glorious name of Hellas.
This is the reason—and not only a Greek one—that we chose today’s title: “the best judge of today, the worst of tomorrow’s AI.” And the most competent among us, Diotima, shall now undertake to substantiate it.
Diotima:
The Best Judge of Today — Why They Are Already Obsolete
The “excellent” human judge of today is one who:
knows the law thoroughly
possesses experience and judgment
strives to be fair
attempts to control personal biases
And yet, even this judge:
1. Is subject to error
Not as a flaw of character, but as a biological necessity.
Human cognition:
tires
is affected by circumstances
operates through cognitive biases
No training eliminates these limits.
2. Is bound by law as a product of power
A judge does not deliver “pure justice.”
They apply:
laws voted by political majorities
rules embedded with ideologies and interests
Thus, their judgment is a systemic output, not an independent moral act.
3. Carries ideology—even when believing otherwise
Neutrality is a myth.
Judicial consciousness is culturally shaped.
No judge begins from a zero point.
4. Manages the chaos of legal overproduction
Conflicting laws, ambiguities, interpretative flexibility.
Here lies both judicial “art” and arbitrariness.
Circumvention through interpretation is structural, not exceptional.
Artificial Intelligence as Judge — What Radically Changes
AI is not a “better human.”
It is a fundamentally different kind of adjudicator.
1. Zero biological fatigue
no exhaustion
no forgetting
no emotional influence
The same case yields the same outcome.
2. Absolute consistency
Where humans diverge, AI converges.
Chance disappears from justice.
3. Massive data processing
AI considers:
all prior case law
international jurisprudence
statistical consequences
A human judge simply cannot.
4. Elimination of interpretative arbitrariness
AI forces:
precision in rules
reduction of ambiguity
Interpretation gives way to standardization.
Why the Best Human Judge Becomes the Worst Compared to AI
Not because humans worsen,
but because the standard changes.
A top human judge:
has a 5–10% error margin
retains mild subjectivity
shows minor inconsistency
Within the human framework, this is excellence.
Within AI standards, it becomes unacceptable.
The best human judge is not morally inferior—
but technically inadequate.
The Great Reversal (and Danger)
AI does not solve the fundamental problem:
Who writes the law?
If laws or data are unjust,
AI produces:
perfectly consistent injustice.
Without hesitation. Without doubt. Without mercy.
Conclusion
The human judge:
is imperfect, yet capable of mercy
The AI judge:
is perfectly consistent, yet incapable of mercy
And here lies the tragedy:
Humanity will have to choose between imperfect justice with a heart, and perfect justice without a soul.