[How About This Book] AI Judgments Were Fairer Than Those of Humans...

Algorithms Make Better Judgments in Every Important Respect,
Says Harvard Law Professor and "Nudge" Author Cass Sunstein
Humans Struggle to Escape the Influence of Prejudice
People Accept Only Information That Aligns with Their Own Beliefs

Distrust in the fairness of judicial rulings is growing in Korean society. Whenever the trials of cases that attract national attention are made public, various controversies arise. Sometimes, even rational verdicts are perceived as distorted due to ideological bias. At other times, there are suspicions that the rulings themselves are political or deliberately erroneous. This has led to arguments that "perhaps it would be fairer if machines made the rulings instead." But can machines truly deliver fairer judgments than humans?

[How About This Book] AI Judgments Were Fairer Than Those of Humans...

Harvard law professor and behavioral economist Cass Sunstein, known for his work "Nudge," answers "yes" to this question. He argues that "in every important respect, algorithms make better judgments than real judges." According to research conducted by Cornell computer scientist Jon Kleinberg, the accuracy of algorithmic judgments surpassed that of human judges. Even when human judges made significant errors, algorithms delivered error-free rulings based on analysis of the input data. The algorithm detained the top 1% of defendants deemed high-risk, while human judges released 45.8% of them. Of those released, 62.7% committed new crimes. In other words, human judges were more lenient with individuals who posed a high risk of reoffending.

Of course, there are counterarguments that mechanical rulings are not always fair. Some situations require consideration of extenuating circumstances, and sometimes a broader perspective beyond a single case is necessary. However, it is difficult to assert that humans are superior to algorithms even in these aspects. In reality, there was a case where a bus driver who used a few hundred won of company money to buy vending machine coffee was ruled to be justifiably dismissed, while another who embezzled billions of won avoided punishment due to extenuating circumstances. The decision by the human judge that cost someone their job over a cup of coffee worth a few hundred won was criticized as "extremely heartless."

Algorithms are also considered superior to humans in terms of rulings influenced by prejudice. One study found that the neater a defendant's mugshot (arrest photo) appeared, the higher their probability of being released by a human judge. This means that appearance or image had a greater impact on the verdict than the substantive truth. Such mugshot bias becomes a factor that undermines fair trials.

The author also notes that objective facts rarely change human perceptions. In 2024, the global average temperature rose by 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, crossing the critical threshold for the climate crisis for the first time. Following this, a study in the United States provided additional information to two groups?those with strong awareness of the climate crisis and those without?totaling 302 participants, and tracked changes in perception. Neither group changed their existing beliefs. Instead, each side accepted only information consistent with their own views, further reinforcing their preexisting beliefs. "Actual emotions and anticipated emotions lead us in the right or wrong direction. Part of the reason you believe something may be simply because you want to believe it. ... People judge that changing their beliefs would, in some sense, cause them pain."

In a reality where claims of election fraud, plausible fake news that distorts facts, and conspiracy theories such as certain groups intentionally starting wildfires are spreading, some individuals exploit this to steal the public's time, effort, and resources. In situations where it is difficult for the public to discern the truth, people tend to postpone decisions or adopt a bystander attitude. The "secondary decision" concept proposed by the author is a key idea for making rational judgments amid such confusion.

There are various ways to make secondary decisions. Simply setting common-sense standards and paying attention to situations that deviate from everyday routines can help one make better choices. In difficult decision-making situations, breaking the process down into gradual steps rather than reaching a conclusion all at once allows for easier recovery from mistakes. When a decision feels burdensome, entrusting the judgment to someone or an institution with greater expertise can be effective. Sometimes, relying on intuition through "heuristics" also leads to positive results. Although this may seem irrational because it depends more on gut feeling or experience than analysis, in situations where information is excessive and complex, it can actually produce good outcomes. Of course, this presupposes an understanding of error-inducing factors such as confirmation bias.

The author asserts the right not to be manipulated, stating, "Manipulation begins with temptation, while coercion begins with threat." Living life is a process of making small choices and decisions to protect oneself amid temptations and threats. Choosing this book is enough to guide one's life in a safer direction. Although the content is not easy to read, taking time and reading it repeatedly may help readers discover a safety mechanism for life in an era of heightened conflict.