摘要
人工智能在参与司法审判的过程中常被认为是辅助法官的工具,这是新兴技术之工具理性与司法制度之价值理性博弈的结果,也是在弱人工智能情境下的法学共识,即人工智能处于辅助审判的定位。如今,ChatGPT作为人工智能的新应用,在智性上有显著提升,甚至具有产生算法意识的可能。ChatGPT的技术特征与算法逻辑使其具有更高的智能水平,但其仍受到法律的限制,无法具有法官能力。同时,ChatGPT目前仍无法具有心性与灵性,无法通过民事诉讼基本原则的检验,不具备公正司法的能力,并不能替代人类法官。例如,ChatGPT无法满足独立行使审判权的要求,也无法替代当事人的意思自治。ChatGPT确实有助于提升司法效率,并保障法院与当事人的程序利益,却无法确保公正司法,无法替代当事人处分实体利益。在这个角度,ChatGPT更大的作用是促进司法效率,而非保障司法公正,法官的审判权与当事人的处分权仍是其应用的禁区。技术革新并不足以颠覆人工智能在司法应用中辅助审判的基本原则,人工智能需对程序性事务与实体性事务区别对待,慎入诉讼后阶段的审判权行使活动,以此保障人类法官公正、独立、自由地进行司法裁判。
Artificial intelligence is often regarded as a tool to assist judges in the process of participating in judicial trials,which is the result of the game between the instrumental rationality of emerging technology and the value rationality of judicial system.This is also the legal consensus in the context of weak artificial intelligence,and artificial intelligence is in the position of assisting trial.Now,ChatGPT,as a new application of artificial intelligence,has a significant improvement in intelligence,and even has the possibility of generating algorithmic awareness.ChatGPT's technical characteristics and algorithmic logic make it possess a higher level of intelligence,but it is still regulated by law and cannot have the ability of a judge.In the meantime,ChatGPT still does not have the inwardness and spirituality to pass the test of the basic principles of civil procedure.It does not have the ability to conduct fair justice and cannot replace human judges.For example,ChatGPT cannot satisfy the requirement of independent exercise of judicial power,nor can it substitute for the autonomy of the parties concerned.ChatGPT does help to enhance judicial efficiency and protect the procedural interests of the court and the parties concerned.However,it is difficult to ensure the fair administration of justice,and cannot replace the parties involved to dispose of substantive interests.In this respect,ChatGPT plays a greater role in promoting judicial efficiency rather than ensuring judicial justice.The judge's judicial power and the parties'disposal right are forbidden areas for its application.Technological innovation is not enough to overturn the basic principle of AI-assisted trial in judicial application.AI should treat substantive affairs differently from procedural affairs,be cautious to exercise judicial power in the post-litigation stage,and ensure human judges to conduct judicial judgment in a fair,independent and free manner.
出处
《中国矿业大学学报（社会科学版）》
CSSCI
2023年第6期65-78,共14页
Journal of China University of Mining & Technology(Social Sciences)
基金
浙江省哲学社会科学规划课题“基于语料库的中美网络安全法律话语研究”(项目编号:22NDQN249YB)。
