Even if jobs like judges are legally protected from direct AI replacement, they can be de facto automated. If every judge uses the same AI model for decision support, the outcome is systemic homogenization of judgment, creating a centralized point of failure without any formal automation.

When discussing AI risks like hallucinations, former Chief Justice McCormack argues the proper comparison isn't a perfect system, but the existing human one. Humans get tired, biased, and make mistakes. The question isn't whether AI is flawless, but whether it's an improvement over the error-prone reality.

Former Michigan Chief Justice Bridget McCormack argues that the legal system's probabilistic nature, driven by human fallibility, is a core inefficiency. Greater predictability would reduce disputes by allowing businesses and individuals to plan around clear, consistently enforced rules.

Unlike a human judge, whose mental process is hidden, an AI dispute resolution system can be designed to provide a full audit trail. It can be required to 'show its work,' explaining its step-by-step reasoning, potentially offering more accountability than the current system allows.

The legal system, despite its structure, is fundamentally non-deterministic and influenced by human factors. Applying new, equally non-deterministic AI systems to this already unpredictable human process poses a deep philosophical challenge to the notion of law as a computable, deterministic process.

While AI can inherit biases from training data, those datasets can be audited, benchmarked, and corrected. In contrast, uncovering and remedying the complex cognitive biases of a human judge is far more difficult and less systematic, making algorithmic fairness a potentially more solvable problem.

National tests in Sweden revealed human evaluators for oral exams were shockingly inconsistent, sometimes performing worse than random chance. While AI grading has its own biases, they can be identified and systematically adjusted, unlike hidden human subjectivity.

A key argument for getting large companies to trust AI agents with critical tasks is that human-led processes are already error-prone. Bret Taylor argues that AI agents, while not perfect, are often more reliable and consistent than the fallible human operations they replace.

The benchmark for AI reliability isn't 100% perfection. It's simply being better than the inconsistent, error-prone humans it augments. Since human error is the root cause of most critical failures (like cyber breaches), this is an achievable and highly valuable standard.