ChatGPT技术嵌入智慧司法的伦理风险及其法治应对

The Ethical Risks and Legal Responses of Embedding ChatGPT Technology into Intelligent Justice

中国式司法公正的标准是情理法圆融。实现司法的法律效果与社会效果的统一是司法的社会治理目标与司法人民性的必然要求。围绕着司法公正的合理性标准展开讨论,以合理是合法的必要条件为基本命题,通过剖析ChatGPT的技术本质及其融入智慧司法场景的具体情形,揭示司法技术化趋势由于单向强化司法技术引发了伦理风险。ChatGPT作为人工智能技术的集大成者依然无法克服技术不能在个案中实现情理法圆融的缺陷。在司法技术化趋势下,既要以科技伦理审查控制算法与数据取用,也要提升法官的司法技艺,后者是在当前人工智能技术条件下实现情理法圆融的最为重要法治路径。尤其应明确法官主体与社会效能原则,培养法官对具体案情与社会运行机理的感知能力,使法官在把握具体案情的基础上,融贯法律知识、法律方法以及对特定主体合理行为的代入式判断和理解。

The standard of Chinese-style judicial justice is the balance of sentiment,ethics and law.Realizing the unity of judicial legal effect and social effect is the inevitable requirement of social governance goal and people's character.The discussion revolves around the reasonable standard of judicial justice,and takes as the basic proposition that rationality is the necessary condition of legality.By analyzing the technical nature of ChatGPT and the specific situation of its integration into the intelligent judicial scene,it reveals that the trend of judicial technology has caused ethical risks due to the unilateral strengthening of judicial technology.ChatGPT,as a masterpiece of artificial intelligence technology,still cannot overcome the defect that technology is out of capability to balance sentiment ethics and law in individual cases.Under the trend of judicial technicalization,it is necessary to control the access of algorithms and data through science and technology ethics law.Meanwhile,it is also important to put more attention to improve the judicial skills of judges.The latter is the most important path of achieving the balance under the current artificial intelligence technology conditions.In particular,the principle of judges'subject and social effectiveness should be clarified to cultivate judges'perception ability of individual cases and social operation mechanism.By this method,judges could integrate legal knowledge,legal methods,surrogate judgment and understanding of specific subjects'reasonable behaviors on the basis of grasping individual cases.