|
Can artificial intelligence interpret the U.S. Constitution? It sounds like a question from a sci-fi novel, but it’s an issue that has become a pressing reality. Professor Andrew Coan, the Milton O. Riepe Chair in Constitutional Law at Arizona Law, takes on this topic in a new article, “Artificial Intelligence and Constitutional Interpretation,” co-authored by Professor Harry Surden from the University of Colorado. Their work explores not only what large language models (LLMs) can do in legal analysis but also the deeper questions of whether AI should play a role in constitutional interpretation at all.
To put AI’s capabilities to the test, Claude—an advanced LLM—was asked to respond to interview questions about the article on Prof. Coan’s behalf, with Prof. Coan later reviewing and reacting. The AI responses and Prof. Coan’s reactions offer a unique look at how well AI understands constitutional interpretation and where it falls short.
While he clarified certain points from the AI interview, Prof. Coan called the responses “shockingly good.” “In nearly every respect, they track the argument of the paper faithfully,” Prof. Coan noted.
An excerpt from Claude’s responses is below. For more, see the full story.
Arizona Law: Do you see a future where AI plays an influential role in shaping constitutional law? Will constitutional interpretation always require human involvement?
Claude (on behalf of Andrew Coan): While AI will certainly play an increasingly important role in constitutional law, particularly in research and analysis, I believe meaningful constitutional interpretation will continue to require human judgment. This isn’t just because of current technological limitations - it reflects the inherently normative nature of constitutional decision-making. That said, the influence of AI is likely to grow significantly, especially in routine cases where resource constraints make algorithmic assistance particularly valuable.
The key is understanding that AI doesn’t eliminate the need for human judgment - it transforms how and where that judgment is exercised. Even if LLMs eventually surpass human capabilities in many aspects of legal analysis, the choice to delegate constitutional decisions to them would itself be a profound normative judgment requiring careful justification.
| 
.gif){kind=small}
