> This limitation is not peculiar to AI—it reflects the inherent nature of constitutional interpretation itself. Many constitutional disputes involve competing values and interests that must be weighed and balanced by human decision-makers. Perhaps judges should avoid making these judgments themselves, deferring to the legislature or following original meaning. But those, too, are consequential choices that require justification. No technological advance, however sophisticated, can transform such questions into purely objective inquiries with demonstrably correct answers.
This seems to acknowledge the obvious question that comes up reading this article - are flaws of AI judgment any worse than flaws of humans? In the end having a highly principled constitution is important, so it can be easily applied without much human intervention.