AI and the law: Reflections on a complex relationship

In this series, we have explored the intersection of AI and the law, uncovering both the promises and the perils of this transformative technology. As the series draws to a close, the big question remains though: Is AI an existential threat, or the saviour of mankind?

This isn’t just a rhetorical question—it reflects the duality at the heart of AI. On one hand, it offers humanity powerful tools for innovation, efficiency, and problem-solving. On the other, it introduces new challenges that strain our existing legal frameworks and ethical boundaries. To fully grasp its potential and its risks, we must look at both sides of the issue.

A double-edged sword

One of AI’s great strengths lies in its ability to identify patterns, analyse vast datasets and make predictions, often with extraordinary precision. These capabilities are already transforming fields like healthcare, where AI assists in diagnosing diseases, and legal practice, where AI tools can speed up tasks like document review and legal research. But there is a flip side to consider too. AI’s reliance on historical patterns makes it inherently poor at rethinking entrenched norms or innovating beyond what has come before.

This limitation is particularly stark in the legal world, where fairness often demands revisiting and overturning established precedents—changing entrenched positions by, for example, introducing the neighbour principle (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562), recognising privacy rights (Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22) and redefining cohabitees’ property rights (Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17).

An AI system tasked with deciding such cases would likely have adhered to precedent, unable to assess the broader societal implications or moral principles then at play, or the need for positive change. So while AI is an extraordinary tool, it appears that it is not a complete substitute for human judgement.

The AI paradox

Throughout this series, we have explored how AI challenges foundational legal principles. We have considered the difficulty of defining AI for legal purposes: without a universal definition and approach, regulation becomes fragmented, leaving businesses navigating a patchwork of standards. We have also examined how, from the ownership dilemmas of AI-generated works to the liabilities of AI hallucinations and the concerns of deepfake technologies, the law is already playing catch-up. Of course, as AI grows more sophisticated, the stakes will only rise.

The paradox of AI lies in its dual role as both a disruptor and an enabler. For example, while AI raises fairness concerns—such as giving better-resourced parties an edge in litigation through advanced tools—it can arguably also level the playing field. Smaller firms and litigants in person now have access to legal research and drafting capabilities that were previously the preserve of larger (or better funded) legal teams. However, it remains to be seen whether these tools can properly be harnessed without sacrificing fairness, accountability and trust.

A balanced future

So, is AI the saviour of mankind or an existential threat?

For me personally, AI might indeed be an existential threat—at least when it comes to any acting ambitions I hold. If you have enjoyed the six episodes comprising this series, then you have enjoyed the acting talents of ‘AI Paul’ (rather than the real Paul Schwartfeger), as the series has been brought to life by the very technology it critiques. I am sure some of you will have worked this out while viewing the series—there are more than a few ‘tells’! If this revelation leaves you uneasy though, then this underscores the very tensions we have discussed in the series—the promise of innovation versus the risks to trust and identity.

From my perspective, the answer to the deeper question of existentiality lies somewhere in between the two poles presented in the series. AI is neither inherently good nor evil; it is a tool shaped by the intentions and values of those who create and use it. To ensure that AI serves humanity’s best interests, we need legal frameworks that are robust yet flexible, capable of adapting to both the technology’s rapid evolution and its profound societal impact.

The frontier of AI and the law is vast, uncharted and full of potential. The journey ahead will demand innovation, collaboration and careful deliberation—but, above all, I think, humanity.

---

In this final video in my 6-part series, “Artificial Intelligence: Navigating the Legal Frontier”, I discuss procedural issues courts and tribunals are (or should be) grappling with, I consider why and how AI regulations are likely to converge in time, and I answer the big question of the series.