About Jurimai
Juri (law) married to AI (artificial intelligence) (“Jury-my”)
Jurimai “Jury may”
About Jurimai’s Founder: John Michael Jensen
John Jensen advises individuals, business, and entities on all aspects of the law and business.
John Jensen has extensive experience in business, non-profit entities, civil litigation and the administrative process.
He has successfully litigated claims in several forums, prosecuted Writs, and handled civil appeals. He has drafted and negotiated complex three party agreements in regulatory contexts and negotiated various beneficial financial settlements.
John graduated with a B.A. in Economics from UCLA, and a J.D. from USC Law School. He is a member of the State Bar of California.
John Michael Jensen
Law Offices of John Michael Jensen
(310) 312-1100
johnjensen@johnmjensen.com
11500 W. Olympic Blvd #550, Los Angeles CA 90064
Home
AIjure.com:AI will revolutionize law, the practice of law, and how citizens expect the law to function in society.In particular, AI will further challenge notions of fairness, impartiality, neutrality, and equal justice before the law.AIjure Addresses The Need for (1) Fair Access, (2) Objective Neutrality; (3) Guard Rails, and (4) Accountability in AIAI will likely greatly change the balance of power, and further concentrate power and resources in those who control the technology. AI’s current structure is dominated by large corporations who aggressively price access.On the one hand, AI could be a great boon to the field of law, greatly reducing costs, increasing speed, and yielding more fair results.On the other hand, since AI is a very capital intensive private business, the use of AI will likely further aggravate inequities, inefficiencies, and unfairness in the legal system, putting further stress on an already fragile process.
AiJure.com Summary: To promote justice and due process, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in law should be maintained or regulated to: (1) allow “fair” access for all; (2) establish at least one AI algorithm trained to be objective, neutral, and factually correct to inform and allow adjudicative bodies, individuals, and society to use as a standard or reference model; (3) contain “guard rails” that limit or define the inputs and information that AI may use or consider especially in a legal matter; (4) respect the individual’s privacy rights with selective opt-out options; and (5) be accountable for the basis of its responses.