Mr. Robot takes on law&order: Malaysia tests AI in judicial system
The Malaysian flag hangs from the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Aug. 22, 2014. (Shutterstock Photo)


Movies have shown the future dominated by artificial intelligence (AI) attempting to wipe off humanity. Can the humble beginnings of the genocidal level of AI start with prosecuting parking tickets? Malaysia is sure to find out as it started to test AI in its judgement system in courts in Sabah and Sarawak.

The use of artificial intelligence in the justice system is nothing brand new and is being tested in several countries, including the DoNotPay lawyer mobile app, robot judges evaluating small claims in Estonia, robot mediators in Canada, and artificial intelligence judges in China and now Malaysia.

Authorities say AI-based judicial systems make sentences more consistent, clear backlogs in cases in a quicker and less costly way and can help parties avoid lengthy, expensive and stressful litigation.

According to the news of Malay Mail, Malaysian federal authorities aim to complete their nationwide trials of artificial intelligence punishment systems this month, which they say can "improve the quality of the judiciary," although it has not been determined exactly how they will be used in courts.

In this context, the artificial intelligence judgment system developed by the public company "Sarawak Information Systems" started to be tested in the Sabah and Sarawak courts.

A spokesperson for the Federal Court Chief Justice stated that the use of artificial intelligence in courts was "still in the experimental stage" while refraining from commenting further on the operation of the system.

Hamid Ismail, a lawyer for nearly 20 years, expressed his surprise at the conviction of his client, who was tried in Sabah state, by artificial intelligence.

Hamid said that he knew that the courts in Sabah and Sarawak were testing the AI ​​system as part of the pilot, but that he was annoyed that the technology in question was being used without lawyers, judges and the public fully understanding the system.

The experienced lawyer stated that the decision makers did not have sufficient consultations with professional experts on the use of technology.