Abstract This Article examines the “human in the loop” argument regarding the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in court proceedings, challenging the intuition that AI assistance is inherently less problematic than full delegation. It argues that even limited AI support can risk blurring the lines between human and AI decision-making, posing significant dangers for human judgment in critical judicial functions. The Article starts out by identifying the main arguments in favor of human oversight and categorizing them into technological, legal, and psychological reasoning in Section B. It then shifts focus to the potential dangers of applying the “human in the loop” concept to judicial decision-making in Section C. The analysis highlights the fundamentally different modes of operation between humans and AI, particularly in handling natural language and legal reasoning. Furthermore, it explores how human judges might become over-reliant on AI, effectively acting as “rubber stampers” and leading to eroding human vigilance, skills, and independent judgment. To illustrate the complexities of these dynamics, the Article categorizes various AI tools used in court proceedings based on their degree of involvement and effect on judicial decision-making in Section D. The Article concludes by urging us to rethink our current understanding of “co-working” with AI as a universal remedy and putting emphasis on a clear division of labor instead, as discussed in Section E. For those scenarios where human and AI contributions are deeply interwoven, the Article stresses the need for making a conscious decision whether AI or a human judge should perform the underlying tasks in the future.
Elisabeth Paar (2025) studied this question.