In a thought-provoking scenario, the future of the legal profession was a central theme at the International MaxUp Legathon held in Astana, Kazakhstan. Hosted at Maqsut Narikbayev University, students from 13 countries gathered to examine the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on legal systems, ethical standards, and human rights.
Understanding the limitations of AI in judicial roles
The prospect of AI replacing human judges raises fundamental questions about the judicial process. Legal decisions rely heavily on factual analysis, moral reasoning, and an innate sense of empathy—qualities that AI fundamentally lacks. Unlike humans, AI systems operate on data patterns and learned experiences, meaning they cannot incorporate emotional nuances or mitigating circumstances into their decisions.
AI’s reliance on historical data can also create a cyclical error if past decisions were flawed. Current AI technologies often yield results based on repetitive data analysis, yet they struggle to articulate the logical underpinnings of their conclusions. This lack of transparency is critical in judicial settings, where explaining the rationale behind decisions is essential.
“There’s a huge problem, as language models cannot reproduce the legal chain of reasoning, or so-called legal reasoning,” said Sergey Pen, Deputy Chairman of the Board for Science, Innovation, and Artificial Intelligence at MNU.
As Pen emphasizes, AI should be perceived as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human judgement. In Kazakhstan, AI applications currently assist in reviewing judicial practices and analyzing legislation, helping judges to maintain consistency across similar cases, but they do not replace the human element in judicial authority.
Global perspectives on AI integration in legal frameworks
The integration of AI into judicial processes varies significantly across the globe. In China, for instance, AI is employed to assist with routine tasks, such as filling in documents and analyzing case similarities, but does not have the authority to determine legal outcomes. “In my country, it is now used to fill in some blanks, and maybe help the jury find some cases, but the AI can’t just decide the result,” noted Hongyi Chen, a law student from China University of Political Science and Law.
Students from Georgia have been actively investigating how AI could function within legal frameworks, revealing the disparity between what is technologically possible and what is legally permissible. Keti Khaliashvili, a student from Tbilisi University, stated, “For the time being, the human judge, as an arbitrator, still has to weigh the merits in the case and only then does the legal solution become binding.” She expressed optimism that advancements could lead to a future where AI might play a more significant role in judicial decisions.
Meanwhile, students from McGill University in Canada emphasized the need for careful exploration and regulation of AI’s role in legal matters. “Personally, at the moment, I feel that AI is not developed yet to the point where it could completely replace human judgment,” remarked Elisa Xue.
The challenge of accountability in AI-generated decisions
A central issue in the debate over AI’s role in the legal system is accountability. Judicial decisions are authoritative acts for which judges are held responsible, allowing for appeals and disciplinary measures in cases of error. However, the question arises: who is accountable when AI makes a mistake? Is it the developer of the algorithm or the service provider?
Students from MNU argue for the necessity of defining accountability in AI-generated content. Islam Shagatayev, a student, pointed out, “If AI-generated content causes harm, is it responsible, and is ‘AI’ labeling necessary?” He highlighted the lack of legal categories addressing the spectrum of potential harm caused by AI, advocating for an adaptable legal framework that encompasses various levels of legal relations.
The consensus among the legathon winners supports establishing clear accountability for AI developers and manufacturers, emphasizing that developers should bear the brunt of responsibility for AI decisions. Alissa Doktorovich from Al-Farabi Kazakh National University remarked, “We think that an individual or user does not always have any protection. That’s why the developer should bear most of the responsibility.”
The discussions surrounding AI’s role in law in Kazakhstan are particularly timely, as the nation prepares for the Year of Digitalisation and Artificial Intelligence in 2026. The recently passed Law on “Artificial Intelligence” enshrines the principle of anthropocentricity, underscoring that AI is a tool designed to mimic human cognitive functions without assuming human responsibility.
The legathon serves as a platform to reevaluate the relationship between AI and legal practices, reminding us that amid rising algorithmic governance, the human aspect of law remains paramount.