Author: Rana Sajjad*
This blog post is Part I of a three-part series on “Multi-Intelligence Justice”, a term coined by the author while conceiving the idea of Multi-Intelligence Justice which he has developed into a jurisprudential theory. In the next two installments of this series, the author will propose a Multi-Intelligence Justice framework while discussing its core ideas, key considerations and practical and normative implications with a view to broadening the discussion beyond arbitration to the wider fields of justice, governance and technology. The series is intended to spark an interdisciplinary conversation on how an optimal combination of human and artificial intelligence can together shape the future of efficient and efficacious decision-making.
| Jurisdiction: |
Topics: |
Part I: From IQ to AIQ: A New Measure of Intelligence
What is intelligence? There is no definitive or universally accepted definition which is rather surprising considering it is a term so commonly used and presumably understood by us. One of the definitions I came across was while reading Max Tegmark’s book titled “Life 3.0” in which he defines it as the ability to solve complex problems. How intelligent you are would then depend on how effectively and quickly you can solve a complex problem.
The age of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has induced us to further explore the notion of intelligence, something we took for granted while thinking we knew what it meant. Who better to understand what intelligence means than the most intelligent species in the world, right? AI’s advent and recent ascendence has changed this and while we may still consider ourselves the most intelligent species, we are now learning that the “non-specie” intelligence, AI in this case, is undeniably superior to us in some ways and for certain tasks. The caveat of “in some ways and for certain tasks” may come across as a bit self-serving since it reassures us that we still are very much in the driver’s seat, hands on deck, in control, only using AI as an assistant as and when we choose to do so. This would indicate that our reliance on AI’s analysis, advice and judgment is essentially based on AI’s ability to be a very intelligent and prolific assistant. No wonder that how intelligent we are is now being judged not only by our Human Intelligence (HI) or Intelligence Quotient (IQ) but also by the Artificial Intelligence Quotient (AIQ), a measure of our proficiency in using AI. This would mean that the most intelligent amongst us does not necessarily have to be the one with the highest IQ as long as he/she is an adept AI user (having high AIQ) that would more than compensate for the low IQ he/she was born with. Aah, we can finally say that intelligent people are not born, they are made, thank you AI!
Regardless of whether we have low or high AIQ, if AI is considered our assistant or co-pilot, should we still consider ourselves as the ones in the pilot’s seat? The AI-human balance of power seems to be shifting though which is why it would be prudent to not get too comfortable with our presumably preeminent role. Thus, adopting AI with an open mind, without either feeling superior or insecure would be better for our survival as a truly intelligent, gainfully employed and meaningfully engaged species. This would also help keep any dystopian AI takeover at bay.
Now that we have a sense of how to put intelligence, both HI and AI, and their interplay, into context, let us turn to how this can play out in the realm of international arbitration specifically in dispensation of justice through rendering of an arbitral award by the arbitrator(s) constituting the Tribunal. We start by viewing justice through the lens of intelligence by exploring how AI compares to HI and the value it can bring.
As a first step, let us consider how a Tribunal arrives at a decision. By logical reasoning, of course. But is that all? While a logical application of the law to the facts of the case should presumably (and logically) be fair, do we just need a logical and dispassionate application of the law to the facts of the case? What about the innate human traits of intuition, creativity, compassion and an overall sense of justice that guide the Tribunal’s decision of what is fair in the given circumstances not just strictly in accordance with the letter of the law but also its true spirit? And if we believe that these human traits are not important in the realm of justice, the obvious question is: Why should justice and rendering of arbitral awards only be done by humans? Would AI not be equally good, if not better, than humans at logically applying the law to the facts of the case? If anything, it would be quicker and more efficient so, why should we have any concerns about the logic, fairness and efficacy of AI’s decisions/arbitral awards? Why consider human involvement as a pre-requisite for any decision/arbitral award to be considered fair and just? Is it because the need for human involvement – of their intuition, creativity and compassion – in the deliberations and decision-making either takes precedence or complements the dispassionate and meticulous application of the law to the facts of the case? Or is it because we want the decisions to “feel” fair and just for which we need the emotional intelligence (EQ), not just brain power (IQ) of the human(s) the Tribunal is composed of? But what if we did not have to choose between the two? What if we could have both IQ and EQ and could combine them in an optimal manner? What if instead of relying on one type of intelligence, HI or AI, for dispensing justice and rendering arbitral awards, we could integrate both of them in a seamless manner? And what if we called it “Multi-Intelligence Justice”?
* Rana Sajjad, a Columbia Law School alum, is a dual-qualified lawyer licensed as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and a Member of the New York Bar. He has over 25 years’ experience of practicing law in Pakistan and the U.S. in practice areas including contracts, cross-border transactions, commercial litigation and domestic and international arbitration. He is the Managing Partner at Triage Law, a Lahore-based commercial and arbitration law firm, and the Founder & President of the Center for International Investment and Commercial Arbitration (CIICA), Pakistan’s first international arbitration center.