IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dbk/metave/v1y2022ip23id23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online dispute resolution: can we leave the initial decision to Large Language Models (LLM)?

Author

Listed:
  • Mario Ferrer-Benítez

Abstract

In the era of digitization and artificial intelligence, online dispute resolution has become a topic of growing interest. In this article, we will explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLM) in online dispute resolution, how they can be implemented, the necessary technological resources, as well as their limitations and challenges. LLMs have the ability to process and analyze large volumes of data in a short period of time. This allows them to evaluate many indicators, criteria, and parameters, something that could take a long time for human judges or experts. This speed and efficiency can be particularly useful in cases involving a large number of documents, such as contracts, expert reports, and others. To implement LLMs in online dispute resolution, adequate technological resources are needed. One of the main challenges is ensuring the security and privacy of the data processed by these models. To do this, the use of technologies such as blockchain can be of great help, as it allows for the creation of secure, decentralized, and unalterable records of transactions and decisions made during the dispute resolution process. LLMs are promising tools for online dispute resolution, but it is important to recognize their limitations and challenges. Although they can offer greater efficiency and agility in the analysis of legal cases, they should not be used as substitutes for human legal professionals. Instead, LLMs should be considered as complementary tools, which can enhance and enrich the decision-making process in legal cases. By responsibly and ethically implementing LLMs in online dispute resolution, and proactively addressing the risks of bias and partiality, these tools can provide great value in the legal field and improve accessibility to justice for all.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:dbk:metave:v:1:y:2022:i::p:23:id:23
DOI: 10.56294/mr202223
as

Download full text from publisher

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be available.

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dbk:metave:v:1:y:2022:i::p:23:id:23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Javier Gonzalez-Argote (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://mr.ageditor.ar/ .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.