Do judges dream of electronic sentences?

The voluntarist disruptive hopes in the full application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of the Judiciary does not enervate an inescapable –and inevitable– reality such as the reformulated and growing link between AI and the Administration of Justice. And more specifically, between the algorithm and the
judicial decision. However, throughout the text, it will be shown that, to this day, the direct replacement of human activity in the judicial decision is purely chimerical in the short and medium term. Another thing is the activities related to the judicial prediction of the private platforms that use AI, fully developed and implemented (with some criminal reluctance as in France). Along with this prescient commercial activity, only in two areas can a timid disruption in the judicial field be rigorously affirmed: the possibilities offered by simple automation in the process and the use of automatic data processing technologies in the audiovisual
field. Disadvantages related to potentially discriminatory bias; the pure search for the technological imitation of the guidelines of human behavior; the denaturation of the heuristic principle or technical incapacity, such as the still incomplete processing of human language, are too many servitudes to consider robot
judges even more than a fiction.