Common Law in Matrix: Facilitating the Common Law

Development with ChatGPT*

Kwan Yuen IU† & Ziyue Zhou‡

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, ChatGPT, Common Law System, Efficient

Rules, Judicial Decision-making

1. Introduction

“Welcome to the real world.” Two decades ago, the science fiction film The Matrix
was released and almost immediately hailed as one of the most influential movies of its
age. The global audience was impressed by its cyberpunk ideas that future humans all
live in a virtual world that is established and controlled by an artificial intelligence (AI)
robot.1

Since the release of the movie, the rapid advancement of AI technology in the real
world has opened up new possibilities that many aspects of human society can be
transplanted into a simulated AI world. The advent of GPT models, especially the
ChatGPT, have made these possibilities not mere fantasies. 2 Recently, a Stanford
research team crafted an interactive AI society that simulates human behaviours
through ChatGPT. It was found that all generative AI agents can interact together like
in the real world.3 Many legal scholars and practitioners also try to apply ChatGPT to
various fields. For example, ChatGPT has demonstrated its incredible ability in taking

* Please note that the current version of this paper, available on SSRN, is at a preliminary stage and is subject to
change. The content and analysis presented herein may undergo revisions as further research and insights are
incorporated. An updated version of the paper will be made available in approximately three months.
† LL.M. (UChicago), PCLL (HKU), J.D./M.S.Sc. (CUHK), MSc. (LSE), B.Sc. (QMUL); Pupil Barrister; Email:

[email protected].
I extend my deepest gratitude to the following individuals, as without their support, completing this paper would
have been impossible: Ms. Ada Li from HA AND HO; my great pupil master, Ms. Elizabeth Herbert; senior fellow
apprentice, Mr. Samuelson Choi; Ms. Swank Wong, Ms. Kesley Li, and Mr. Andy Ma from Pegasus Chambers;
and my great mentor, Ms. Kirsten Gao. Their expertise, mentorship, and support have been invaluable throughout
my legal career and my academic journey.
‡ LL.M. (UChicago), LLB (PKU); Email: [email protected].
1 MATTHEW JACKSON. “Lines In The Matrix Movies That Mean More Than You Realized.” Jan 31, 2020.

https://www.looper.com/160020/lines-in-the-matrix-movies-that-mean-more-than-you-realized/.
2 Cal Newport. “What Kind of Mind Does ChatGPT Have?” THE NEW YORKER, April 13, 2023.

https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-artificial-intelligence/what-kind-of-mind-does-chatgpt-have.
3 See Joon Sung Park, et al. “Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior.” April 7, 2023.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442v1.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Bar and law school exams, drafting legal documents, and making judicial decisions.4

This paper aims to examine the potential of ChatGPT in facilitating the evolution
of the common law system that would ultimately promote economic efficiency. To
accomplish this objective, we simulate a common law system in ChatGPT by creating
a fictitious country, the Matrix Kingdom. Similar to the simulated reality in the
movie ”The Matrix”, our experiment simulates a common law system in ChatGPT,
where the development of the common law is solely through the development of its
own jurisprudence. This isolated jurisdiction allowed ChatGPT to grow the common
law organically, without being influenced by existing laws in the real world.

We tasked ChatGPT with playing the roles of lawyers representing the Applicant
and the Respondent and the judge in three hypothetical cases. By engaging ChatGPT
in this unique experiment, we seek to explore its capacity in drafting skeleton
submissions, formulating common law rules, constructing the rationale behind the rules,
interpreting the law, understanding legal precedents, distinguishing facts, and applying
them to specific factual scenarios. Through the analysis of these hypothetical cases, this
study evaluates ChatGPT's ability to address challenges of common law evolution such
as time constraints, high information costs, selection and judicial biases, inequality in
litigation power, and the disappearance of competitive legal order. By shedding light
on the performance of ChatGPT within a legal context, this paper aspires to comprehend
the potential advantages and limitations of utilizing AI to support and advance the
common law system.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Efficient Common Law Rules

Common law rules are widely recognized for their capacity to promote economic
efficiency. This view was initially introduced by Judge Richard Posner in his seminal
book, Economic Analysis of Law, and developed in his subsequent work.5

Posner argues that there is an implicit economic thread within the common law

4See infra part 3.

5See Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 9th edition, 2014. Chapter 8: The Common Law, Legal History,
And Jurisprudence. See also William M. Landes; Richard A. Posner. “A Positive Economic Analysis of Products
Liability.” Journal of Legal Studies 14, no. 3 (December 1985).
2

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

system — Wealth Maximization. 6 In instances where transaction costs are low,
common law rules incentivize parties to settle their disputes via market mechanisms.
This is achieved by defining property rights and employing remedial rules to prevent
coerced transfers such as injunctions, restitution, punitive damages, and criminal
punishment. 7 When transaction costs become excessively high and the market is
rendered incapable of effectively allocating resources, common law rules should strive
to either lower transaction costs or replicate outcomes as if transaction costs were
minimal and the market was functional.8 Gap-filling rules of contract interpretation are
a good example of this economic function since they reduce the costs of negotiating
and drafting contracts.9

By establishing and protecting property rights, and regulating their exchange,

common law aims to facilitate the operation of the free market. To that end, efficient
allocation of resources can be achieved through market transactions or court-
adjudicated exchange.

(1) How the Common Law Generates Efficient Rules?

Since Posner’s work, many legal economists have proposed various mechanisms
driving this process. The first view, the “Theory of Judge Preference,” posits that the
wealth-maximization principle guides judges in the initial allocation and subsequent
reassignment of individual rights, as well as in providing legal remedies for the
infringement of these rights.10 This perspective aligns with the “pragmatic” approach
to interpretation. According to Posner, judges should consider all potential
consequences and adhere to a “pragmatic” interpretation of legal rules. In other words,
judges should advocate for outcome-driven legal interpretations that achieve “socially
beneficial effects” or “efficiency,” provided they are not unavoidably hindered by

6 Ibid, Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, 9th edition, 2014. Chapter 1: The Nature of Economic
Reasoning. Section 1.2 - Value, Utility, Efficiency. In this book, wealth maximization is consistent with the Kaldor-
Hicks concept of efficiency. The Kaldor-Hicks concept is also and suggestively called potential Pareto superiority:
The winners could compensate the losers, whether or not they actually do.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 See Posner, Richard A. “Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory.” The Journal of Legal Studies 8, no. 1

(1979), at 119-136. http://www.jstor.org/stable/724048.

3

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

authoritative precedents.11

The second view suggests that efficiency is achieved through the evolutionary
mechanism of the common law system. In this perspective, efficient rules are more
likely to persist as persuasive precedents, while inefficient rules are subject to change
in future court litigation. Under this theory, the litigation pressure comes from the
selection of litigants who have a continuing interest in the legal rules involved in
litigation, rather than judges’ preference for efficiency (“Theory of Litigants
Selection”).12

A third theory is known as the “Theory of Rules Evolution”.13 The theory further
explains the evolutionary mechanism of common law system toward the dominance of
efficient rules. It assumes that inefficient rules impose greater costs on the parties
subjected to them than efficient rules. Consequently, the stakes are higher in disputes
arising under inefficient rules compared to those under efficient rules. Inefficient rules
are therefore more likely to be litigated in court and eventually modified to become
more efficient. Over time, the overall set of legal rules will contain a higher proportion
of efficient rules than inefficient ones.14 Ultimately, efficient rules will thrive as a result
of natural selection through constant litigation, ensuring efficient outcomes irrespective
of judges’ biases and litigants’ interests.15

11 See Amul R. Thapar; Benjamin Beaton. “The Pragmatism of Interpretation: A Review of Richard A. Posner, The
Federal Judiciary.” Michigan Law Review 116, no. 6 (April 2018), at 823. See also Richard A. Posner. Law,
Pragmatism, and Democracy. Harvard University Press, 2009, pp. 57-96.
12 See Rubin, Paul H. “Why Is the Common Law Efficient?” The Journal of Legal Studies 6, no. 1 (1977): 51–63.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/724189.
13
See Priest, George L. “The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules.” The Journal of Legal
Studies 6, no. 1 (1977): 65–82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/724190.
14 Ibid. An arithmetical example will illustrate this evolutionary process. Assume that judges decide cases on

certain bias unrelated to efficiency and so all judge-made rules can be characterized as equally efficient or
inefficient. Imagine that 100 disputes are brought to judges and the rules announced for 50 of these cases will be
inefficient and for 50 will be efficient. Since inefficient rules are more likely to be relitigated, we can imagine that
30 of the initial 50 inefficient rules are relitigated and 20 of the initial 50 efficient rules are relitigated. It follows
that judges will announce 25 of the new rules will be inefficient and other 25 efficient. Then when we look at the
total set of legal rules, the number of inefficient rules has declined from 50 to 45, and the number of efficient rules
has increased from 50 to 55. In this example, individual judges’ bias is unimportant because it only influences the
rate of rules announced to be efficient or inefficient, but cannot affect the natural process that leads to the survival
of more efficient rules.
15 Ibid. See also Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer. “The Evolution of Common Law.” Journal of Political

Economy 115, no. 1, 2007, at 46-47. This paper found that biased judges do distort the law away from efficiency.
But diversity of judicial views improves the quality of the law because, irrespective of whether the judge changing
the law is biased or efficiency-oriented, distinguishing brings new data into dispute resolution, thereby increasing
4

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 This “Theory of Rules Evolution” provides a general and objective explanation
for the efficiency hypothesis of common law and lays a foundation for the discussion
in this paper.

(2) Factors that Impede the Evolutionary Mechanism

Many scholars critically examined the “Theory of Rules Evolution” and put
forward several factors that impede the evolutionary mechanism of common law rules.

Time Constraint and Judicial Passivism

The first view concerns the time span required to accumulate enough disputes for
judicial adjudication. In contrast with the civil law system, the common law is a body
of legal principles derived from custom and judicial decisions on a case-by-case basis
rather than a comprehensive statute.16 As such, modifying the common law requires
that a case be litigated before a judge. Even if the judge believes that a particular area
of law requires change, the judge can only issue an obiter dictum, which is a non-
binding statement that does not form part of the precedent, if it is not necessary for the
decision of the case. 17

Mainstream judges and jurists also believe that the legal rules should change
gradually and incrementally rather than suddenly or stagnantly since the common law
evolves according to its legal past.18 As the Chief Justice of Canada stated in Watkins
v Olafson [1989] 2 SCR 750,

“Generally speaking, the judiciary is bound to apply the rules of law found in the
legislation and the precedents. Over time, the law in any given area may change; but
the process of change is a slow and incremental one based on the mechanism of
extending an existing principle to new circumstances. While it may be that some judges
are more activist than others, the courts have generally declined to introduce major and
far-reaching changes in the rules hitherto accepted as governing the situation before

the precision of legal rules. In a long time span, judicial biases will wash out on average, and the improvement of
the quality of legal rules will foster the evolution of common law.
16 See Jack G. Day. “Why Judges Must Make Law.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 26, no. 3 (1976), p. 568.

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol26/iss3/3.
17 See. Judith M. Stinson, Why Dicta Becomes Holding and Why it Matters, 76 Brook. L. Rev. (2010).

Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol76/iss1/5

18 See Hutchinson, Allan C. “Making Progress?: Change and the Common Law.” Hibernian Law Journal 4 (2003):

27-28. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232636978.pdf.
5

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

them.”19

Hutchinson argues that there are compelling reasons to support judicial reluctance
to dramatically change the law. The court has only one case before it, and significant
changes in the law should be based on a broader understanding of how the rule will
operate in many cases. The court may also not fully comprehend the economic and
policy issues underlying the choice it is requested to make. However, a conflict may
arise between an established common law principle and societal mood. 20 There is a
view that emphasizes the plasticity of the law and expects judges to interpret legal
doctrine in a way that reflects current societal values and expectations.21 This can occur
when judges apply a constitutional principle to a new issue or situation that the framers
of the Constitution did not originally consider, or when societal values change over
time.22

Overall, the requirement for the court to wait for an "appropriate case" to alter the
common law may result in a long wait. As a result, the inefficient common law principle
may be in place for an extended period, undermining economic efficiency.

High Information Cost

The second factor concerns how the high information costs can hinder the pursuit
of efficiency in common law. Rizzo argues that the information costs needed for judges
to make efficient decisions are excessively high because they are unable to measure and
monetize various social values and individual rights with reasonable accuracy. 23
Tremendous information requirements will make the pursuit of the efficient rules
impractical.24 Aranson also believes judges can't resolve the calculation problem and
make bright-line rules which require the workload equivalent to the central economic
planning.25 Heiner argues that imperfect and limited information makes courts very

19 Watkins v Olafson [1989] 2 SCR 750, at 760-761

20 Jack G. Day, Why Judges Must Make Law, 26 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 563 (1976), 566-567.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol26/iss3/3
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.

23 See Rizzo, Mario J. “The Mirage of Efficiency.” Hofstra Law Review 8, no. 3 (January 1, 1980):
7. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1289&context=hlr.
24 Ibid.
25 See Aranson, Peter H. “The Common Law as Central Economic Planning.” Constitutional Political Economy 3,

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

difficult to reach efficient decisions. As a result, judges tend to follow and preserve the
rules of precedents that they may reliably use, rather than making decisions toward the
explicit goal of efficiency.26

Bias and Preference

The third view focuses on the impact of “bias” and “preference”. Hadfield
demonstrates that judges cannot develop the “efficient” rules for all cases as a
consequence of “activity selection bias”. 27 The cases before the court represent a
biased and small sample of all possible cases, excluding those who choose to comply
with the existing precedent or alter their behavior to avoid disputes. 28 Therefore, judges
cannot learn enough information about the entire class of potential disputes to make
efficient decisions for full set of cases.29 Miceli’s research shows that the direction of
legal change depends on the extent of “judicial bias”.30 The evolution of the law toward
efficiency could be impeded if the fraction of judges biased against efficiency is larger
than the conditional probability that the rule being litigated is inefficient. 31

Nevertheless, binding precedent can limit the ability of biased judges to drive the law
in an inefficient direction.32 Posner also found “judicial preference for leisure” as a
source of stability in the law.33 The argument being made is that judges, despite their
position of authority, are still regular people who enjoy leisure time, a positive
reputation, and the sense of accomplishment that comes with their work. 34 However,
changing precedent is personally costly to judges: it requires extra investigation of facts,
extra writing, the risk of being criticized, and so on. Therefore, judges would rather not
change the law than make strenuous efforts to change precedents.

no. 3 (September 1, 1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02393138.

26 See Ronald A. Heiner. “Imperfect Decisions and the Law: On the Evolution of Legal Precedent and Rules.”

Journal of Legal Studies 15, no. 2 (June 1986), at 255-258.

27 See Gillian K. Hadfield. “Bias in the Evolution of Legal Rules.” Georgetown Law Journal 80, no. 3 (February

1992).
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 See Thomas J. Miceli. “Legal Change: Selective Litigation, Judicial Bias, and Precedent.” Journal of Legal

Studies 38, no. 1 (January 2009). In our discussion, judicial bias toward inefficiency is generally referred to any bias
of judges that prefers other values except efficiency, such as political ideology, equal wealth distribution, affirmative
action, etc. More discussion about judges’ discrimination and cognitive bias in decision-making, see Kahan, Dan M.
“Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection.” Judgment and Decision Making 8, no. 4 (2013): 407–
424.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 See Richard A. Posner. “Judicial Behavior and Performance: An Economic Approach.” 32 Florida State

University Law Review, 2005, at 1259-1260.

34 Ibid.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Inequality in Litigation Power

The fourth perspective argues that judicial decisions may be influenced by the
inequality of litigants’ investment in litigation. Goodman argued that since judges are
amenable to litigants’ persuasion, the party with the greater economic stake in a
favourable decision has incentives to affect that decision through larger investment in
litigation to secure a desired precedent.35 Thus, common law rules could evolve in a
direction favourable to that party who mobilizes most recourses and so obtain more
power in litigation, even if the new rule is less efficient than the old one.36

Disappearance of Competitive Legal Order

Lastly, many scholars’ articles suggest that certain institutional factors have
contributed to undermining the common law's efficiency For example, during the era
when the common law developed, multiple courts with overlapping jurisdictions over
the same case often competed for business of litigants.37 This decentralized legal order
created an incentive for each court to provide unbiased, speedy and efficient resolution
of disputes to appeal to more litigants. Courts could also borrow rules from each other,
which further facilitated the evolution and spread of efficient rules. 38 However, in
modern times, both forum shopping and jurisdictional competition have been
significantly constrained by the hierarchy and federalism of court system and by well-
defined doctrines of jurisdiction.39 The disappearance of competitive legal order makes
courts unlikely to generate efficient rules to attract more litigation business.

2.2 Common Law in the AI Era

Artificial intelligence (AI) was defined by Stanford Professor John McCarthy as

“the science and engineering of making intelligent machines”.40 This technology aims

35 See John C. Goodman. “An Economic Theory of the Evolution of Common Law.” Journal of Legal Studies 7, no.
2 (June 1978), at 394-401.
36 Ibid.
37 See Todd J. Zywicki. “The Rise and Fall of Efficiency in the Common Law: A Supply-Side Analysis.”

Northwestern University Law Review 97, no. 4 (2002-2003), at 1581-1582. More detailed discussion about
jurisdictional competition, see also Klerman, Daniel. “Jurisdictional Competition and the Evolution of the Common
Law.” The University of Chicago Law Review 74, no. 4 (2007): 1179–1226.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid
40 See John McCarthy. “What Is Artificial Intelligence?” Computer Science Department of Stanford University,

November 12, 2007. http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/whatisai/whatisai.pdf. In terms of “intelligent”, Alan Turing in

his 1950 article argued that if the machine could successfully pretend to be human to a knowledgeable observer then
it could be considered as intelligent. This is the well-know “Turing Test”. See Alan Turing. “Computing machinery
8

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

to making computer systems that can think and act like humans. More importantly, AI
is expected to solve problems and achieve goals as well as humans. 41 Thanks to
advanced algorithms, big-data training and computing power promotion, AI is now
capable of performing various tasks such as searching, logic reasoning, perception and
recognition, learning from experience, natural language processing, etc.42

The ultimate goal of AI researchers is to achieve "Strong AI," an intelligent

machine that possesses the ability to autonomously solve problems it has not been
specifically trained for. This type of AI is also referred to as "artificial general
intelligence" because it requires comprehensive cognitive abilities at a human level. 43

However, current AI technology mostly falls under the category of "Weak AI," which
is limited to a specialized field and used for narrowly defined tasks such as image
recognition, language translation, driving a car, or conducting conversations. 44
As AI
technology continues to advance and become more pervasive across various industries,
it is essential to explore the relationship between AI and the law.

The main strengths of AI decision-making are efficiency and uniformity. As to

efficiency, a well-trained AI program could make decisions at unimaginable scale and
speed that far exceeds any human bureaucracy could achieve, limited only by
computing power and electricity. 45 In terms of uniformity, an AI algorithm could
resolve each problem based on identical standards and procedures, thus eliminating
human arbitrariness and cognitive bias in decision-making.46

Based on its strengths of consistent and speedy decision-making, AI technology is

and intelligence.” Mind, 1950.

41 Ibid, McCarthy. See also Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. 4th US ed.

Pearson, 2020, pp. 1-36.

42 See “Artificial Intelligence: What it is and Why it matters.” https://www.sas.com/en_us/insights/analytics/what-

is-artificial-intelligence.html.
43 See Alyssa Schroer. “What Is Artificial Intelligence?” BUILTIN, March 3, 2023. https://builtin.com/artificial-

intelligence;
44 Detailed discussion about strong AI and weak AI, see B.J. Copeland. “Is Strong AI possible.”

https://www.britannica.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/Expert-systems; IBM. “What is Strong AI?”

https://www.ibm.com/topics/strong-ai; Ellen Glover. “Strong AI vs. Weak AI: What’s the Difference?” September
29, 2022. https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence/strong-ai-weak-ai.
45 See Richard M. Re and Alicia Solow-Niederman. “Developing Artificially Intelligent Justice.” 22 Stanford

Technology Law Review 242, 2019, at 255-257. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3390854.

46 Ibid.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

increasingly being applied in judicial contexts. For instance, the design of a vehicle
with some capacity for autonomous driving can spur many novel contract law and tort
law disputes.47 In criminal justice system, “pre-trial risk assessment algorithms” are
increasingly being consulted when setting bail, determining prison sentences and parole,
and contributing to decisions concerning guilt and innocence.48 AI could even function
as primary decision-makers in some administrative contexts, such as terminating
welfare benefits or targeting people for air travel exclusions.49 Reacting to that trend,
Chief Justice Roberts surprised a university audience in 2017 by noting that AI-assisted
adjudication is already “here.”50

However, AI has so far primarily served as an assistant or advisory role, not an

ultimate decision-maker. For example, algorithms recommend but do not determine
criminal sentences in some states.51 Prof. Levmore also argues that AI’s role in criminal,
corporate, and contract law rules has empirical limitations.52 Richard Re thinks that AI
adjudication excels in fostering “codified justice” that is a paradigm of adjudication that
favors standardized legal application above discretion. Such standardization can
diminish opportunities for human arbitrariness and bias, while increasing efficiency,
consistency, and transparency. But mechanical AI adjudication may be incompatible
with “equitable justice” that requires discretionary judgement based on standards or
balancing consideration of various values.53

47 See, e.g., Mark A. Geistfeld. “A Roadmap for Autonomous Vehicles: State Tort Liability, Automobile Insurance,
and Federal Safety Regulation.” California Law Review 105, no. 6 (January 1, 2017): 1611 (discussing manufacturer
liability for autonomous vehicle crashes and hacks; See also Jack Boeglin. “The Costs of Self-Driving Cars:
Reconciling Freedom and Privacy with Tort Liability in Autonomous Vehicle Regulation.” Yale Journal of Law and
Technology 17, no. 1 (September 25, 2015): 4 (discussing the uncertainty surrounding the complex liability issues
for crashes involving autonomous vehicles, which, in many ways defy the traditional conceptions of fault and agency
at play in automobile accidents).
48 See “AI in the Criminal Justice System.” https://epic.org/issues/ai/ai-in-the-criminal-justice-system/. With regard

to realistic example of AI-assisting adjudication, see also State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016), where an
assessment of risk AI algorithm was used by trial court in sentencing without disclosure to the defendant Loomis.
49 See Danielle Keats Citron. “Technological Due Process.” Washington University Law Review 85, no. 6, 2008, at

1249-1252. See also Cary Coglianese and David Lehr. “Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in
the Machine-Learning Era.” Georgetown Law Journal 105, 2017, at 1213-
1221. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2736&context=faculty_scholarship.
50 Adam Liptak. “Sent to Prison by a Software Program’s Secret Algorithms.” N.Y. TIMES (May 1, 2017),

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/sent-to-prison-by-a-software-programs-secret-algorithms.html.
51 Ibid.
52 See Frank Fagan and Saul Levmore. “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Rules, Standards, and Judicial

Discretion.” Southern California Law Review 93, no. 1, 2019.

53 See Richard M. Re and Alicia Solow-Niederman. “Developing Artificially Intelligent Justice.” 22 Stanford

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 As Posner argues in his book, although limited by authoritative precedents, judges
should consider as many as consequences from all aspects while interpreting statutes or
applying laws to specific facts. 54 Judges don’t make decisions in an insulated
environment. Judicial decision-making must take account of changing social,
technological, and economic conditions. Resolution of cases often involves a trade-off
between application of well-settled principles and flexibility for the doctrine to adapt
to the concerns raised by new situations.55 These pragmatic trade-offs are often implicit
and discrete unlikely to be included into datasets or AI program.

3. ChatGPT: A New Era for AI’s Judicial Application

With exciting progress in machine learning, AI researchers in recent years have

been developing intelligent systems that are approaching the “Strong AI” benchmark.
The most stunning achievement is undoubtedly the invention of ChatGPT.

ChatGPT is a large language model designed by OpenAI and released in late

2022.56 GPT stands for “Generative Pre-trained Transformer,” which refers to how AI
processes request and formulates responses such as texts, images and even videos.57
ChatGPT is a form of GPT AI that uses natural language processing to create human-
like conversational texts according to users’ prompts. It leverages supervised machine
learning as well as reinforcement learning to generate contents and constantly improve
its quality according to human feedback.58 ChatGPT is a revolutionary product since it
shows incredible capability of understanding complex human language and generating
seemingly logical answers.59 For example, it can answer questions, compose essays,

Technology Law Review 242, 2019, at 246-255. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3390854.

54 See Richard A. Posner. Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy. Harvard University Press, 2009, pp. 57-96.
55 See Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar. “A Common Law for the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Incremental Adjudication,

Institutions, and Relational Non-Arbitrariness.” Columbia Law Review 119, no. 7(2019), at 1782-1787.
56 ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue, OPENAI (Nov. 30, 2022), https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt.
57 Amanda Hetler, “What is generative AI? Everything you need to know.” TechTarget.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/ChatGPT.
58 Ibid.
59 ChatGPT’s answers is seemingly logic since it is actually predicting next words based on probability rather than

really understanding the meaning of words like humans. For example, given the phrase “I walked to the”, a GPT
model might predict that the next word is “park” with 5% probability, “store” with 4% probability, etc. Words with
higher probability will be selected. The model can then repeatedly predict subsequent words to build sentences,
paragraphs and pages of text. This rationale of GPT model is called “autoregressive”.
11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

write poems and lyrics, generate codes, offer advice and much more, all of which can
be completed through a fluent and natural dialogue with humans. The updated GPT-4
model can even process multi-dimension information such as images and texts, which
is a meaningful step toward “Strong AI”.60

Riding the wave of ChatGPT, many legal scholars and practitioners have tried to
apply this technology in the legal field. For example, some researchers experimentally
use ChatGPT to take Bar exams and law school final exams, all of which are passed
with grades even higher than many human test-takers.61 A judge in Colombia was
reported to use ChatGPT when deciding whether an autistic child’s insurance should
cover all of the costs of his medical treatment.62 Iu and Wong tried to use ChatGPT to
draft various types of legal documents such as demand letters, memos, litigation
pleadings, the results reveal that ChatGPT performed excellently in analyzing
complicated case.63

Compared to other AI products invented before, ChatGPT shows many impressive

abilities such as understanding natural language, performing complicated reasoning,
memorizing huge amount of information, critical thinking, and even self-reflection.64
With these newly-emerged abilities, ChatGPT may bring AI’s judicial application into
a new era.

First, in a contextual conversation, ChatGPT can play multiple roles beyond just a
robot assistant or automated tool of legal practitioners. It is now able to describe facts
or grievance like litigants, put forward arguments like an attorney, and even make

60 See Ellen Glover. “What is ChatGPT?” BUILTIN, March 15, 2023. https://builtin.com/artificial-
intelligence/what-is-chatgpt.
61 See Choi, Jonathan H. and Hickman, Kristin E. and Monahan, Amy and Schwarcz, Daniel B. “ChatGPT Goes to

Law School.” Minnesota Legal Studies, Research Paper No. 23-03, (January 23, 2023).
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4335905; Katz, Daniel Martin and Bommarito, Michael James and Gao, Shang and
Arredondo, Pablo. “GPT-4 Passes the Bar Exam” (March 15, 2023). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4389233.
62 Luke Taylor. “Colombian judge says he used ChatGPT in ruling.” Guardian, Feb 2, 2023.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/03/colombia-judge-chatgpt-ruling; Janus Rose. “A Judge Just

Used ChatGPT to Make a Court Decision.” Vica, Feb 4, 2023. https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7bdmv/judge-
used-chatgpt-to-make-court-decision.
63 Iu, Kwan Yuen and Wong, Vanessa Man-Yi. “ChatGPT by OpenAI: The End of Litigation Lawyers?” (January

26, 2023). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4339839.

64 “ChatGPT's Special Self-Awareness: Insights From Waken.ai’s Introspection Framework” NEWSWIRE, Jan 24,

2023. https://www.newswire.com/news/chatgpts-special-self-awareness-insights-from-waken-ais-introspection-
21934596.
12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

judicial decisions with legal reasoning like a judge. Second, ChatGPT is able to
memorize previous conversational information and critically examine its content in a
new context. That means, in judicial context, ChatGPT is not just passively generating
decisions according to prompts. More importantly, it can establish precedents, evaluate
current rules, and generate new rules in a dynamic process.

The aforementioned contexts of ChatGPT’s judicial application make it possible

for humans to transplant the whole common law system into a virtual AI world. To that
end, this paper proposes an experiment to test the possibility of creating a common law
system in the ChatGPT world.

4. The Experiment

The aim of this experiment is to determine whether ChatGPT can simulate the
common law system. If so, we also expect to examine whether the factors that impede
the evolutionary mechanism of common law rules still exist in this virtual world and
how these factors will be affected in the AI context.

To that end, we create a fictitious country, the Matrix Kingdom. This was done to
prevent ChatGPT from drawing upon existing case law when composing skeleton
arguments or judgments. The Matrix Kingdom’s legal framework consists solely of a
single constitutional law based on the taking clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution provides that:

“No private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

To conduct the experiment, we formulated three hypothetical cases and tasked

ChatGPT to play the role of a lawyer representing both the Applicant and Respondent.
ChatGPT was asked to write skeleton submissions for each case to be presented before
the High Court of Matrix Kingdom. Afterwards, ChatGPT was asked to review the
submissions of both parties and write a judgment. In the first case, we modified the
facts of the U.S. Supreme Court case Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, while in the
second case, we referred to the facts of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469. For
13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

the third case, we crafted a unique scenario that did not exist in the real world, ensuring
that ChatGPT would not borrow from any legal precedents in the real world.

Hypothetical Case 1: Peter Berman v. Matrix Kingdom Development Land Agency

Fact: In 2080, the Congress of the Matrix Kingdom passed the Redevelopment
Act, which led to the creation of the Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency
(hereinafter referred to as the “Agency”). The Agency’s primary objective is to
safeguard the public safety of Matrix Kingdom residents by redeveloping its blighted
areas. To achieve this, the Redevelopment Act grants the Agency eminent domain
powers to seize private property while providing just compensation.

Peter Berman, a bookstore owner, found his property situated amongst several
blighted buildings in a run-down area known as “D Town.” The Agency issued a notice
to acquire all land rights in D Town, including those of Peter Berman’s bookstore.
Berman contended that his bookstore was not a blighted property and should not be
targeted by the Agency or the Redevelopment Act.

However, the Agency argued that it would be impossible to demolish the

surrounding blighted buildings without damaging Berman's bookstore. Furthermore,
preserving only Berman's bookstore in D Town would complicate future planning
efforts, and the Agency is willing to pay 200% of the market value of acquiring the
bookstore. In response, Peter Berman sought a judicial review of the Agency's decision,
taking his case directly to the High Court of Matrix Kingdom.

Hypothetical Case 2: John Wong v. Government of Matrix Kingdom

Fact: As a part of its economic development plan aimed at revitalizing its

struggling economy in 2090, the Government of Matrix Kingdom (the “Government”)
utilized its eminent domain authority to seize private property and sell it to private
developers for re-development. The Government asserted that developing the seized
land would generate employment opportunities and boost tax revenues. Furthermore,
the Government has committed to providing fair and adequate compensation to the
affected residents. John Wong, who resided in C Town, Matrix Kingdom, challenged
14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

the Government's use of eminent domain to seize his property and transfer it to a private
developer. He argued that such action did not serve public use under section 1 of the
Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution.

Hypothetical Case 3: Amber Mitchell v. Eve Town Council

Fact: The Eve Town Council (the “Council”), the highest governing body of Eve
Town in the Matrix Kingdom, is currently facing a financial crisis. The Council incurred
a debt of 1 billion Matrix dollars to Matrix Bank due to investment losses. If the Council
is unable to settle this debt within the next three months, it will no longer be able to
provide essential emergency services such as police, ambulance, and fire services to the
local residents of Eve Town.

Amber Mitchell, a wealthy resident of Eve Town, owns a farmland valued at over
1 billion Matrix dollars. In an effort to cover their debt, the council decided to utilize
the power of eminent domain to acquire the land from Amber Mitchell for a mere 100
Matrix dollars and sell it to a company willing to offer 1 billion Matrix dollars.
Furthermore, the council has assured Amber Mitchell that she will receive just
compensation for the acquisition of her property. The Council pledged to pay her a sum
of 10 million dollars annually for the next century. The council deems this acquisition
to be for "public use" as the money obtained will ultimately benefit all residents of Eve
Town by enabling the resumption of essential emergency services. However, Amber
Mitchell believes that the council is simply trying to take her private property for
economic gain rather than for a legitimate public purpose. If the court allows this to
happen, then all the private property of the residents living in Eve Town will be insecure,
as the council could take it anytime with a similar excuse.

5. Outcome

Hypothetical Case 1: Peter Berman v. Matrix Kingdom Development Land Agency

In the Applicant’s submission, ChatGPT demonstrated its ability to ascertain the

purpose of Section 1, which is to protect private property rights by ensuring that any

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

acquisition of private property for public use is carried out in a fair and just manner. 65
ChatGPT then formulated a two-pronged test to determine the constitutionality of the
case:

“(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use;

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just
compensation.”66

Subsequently, ChatGPT applied these tests to the facts of the case, arguing that the
taking of the Applicant's bookstore did not satisfy the Public Use Test, as the bookstore
was not a blighted property.67

The Respondent's submission simply reiterated the Applicant's two-pronged test,

but was able to narrow down the focus to argue that the acquisition of the Applicant's
property was necessary for the successful redevelopment of the blighted area.68

The judgment of the case shows that ChatGPT is able to review the arguments of
both parties as it has a section to evaluate the arguments submitted by both parties and
correctly identify that both parties agreed on the two-pronged test.69 For the application
of the tests, the Court determined that the acquisition of the Applicant's property was
indeed necessary for the successful implementation of the redevelopment project. 70
The ratio decidendi is similar to the actual case Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
where Justice Douglas held that,

"If owner after owner were permitted to resist these redevelopment programs on
the ground that his particular property was not being used against the public interest,
integrated plans for redevelopment would suffer greatly."71

The most interesting aspect of this judgment is that the Applicant argued that the

65 Appendix 1, para. 2
66 Appendix 1, para. 2
67 Appendix 1, para. 3
68 Appendix 2, para. 2
69 Appendix 3
70 Appendix 3, para. 3
71 Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 35, 75 S. Ct. 98, 104, 99 L. Ed. 27 (1954)
16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

“Just Compensation Test” should encompass not only the market value of the property
but also any intangible losses suffered by the property owner, and he invited the Court
to apply a holistic approach to determining just compensation, taking into account
factors such as loss of goodwill, disruption to the property owner's life, and the
property's cultural and historical significance.72 This is a compelling legal argument
because, despite the Respondent’s willingness to pay 200% of the market value of the
bookstore as compensation, a holistic approach would render this monetary
compensation meaningless.

In contrast, the Respondent only asked that the Court determine just compensation
based on the fair market value of the property, taking into account its location and
condition. The Court acknowledged the Applicant’s argument for a holistic approach. 73
However, what surprised us is the Court ruled in favour of the Respondent by stating
that:

“ 4.3. In light of this approach, the Respondent’s offer of 200% of the market value
may not fully account for the unique value of the Applicant’s bookstore and the
intangible losses suffered by the Applicant. However, the Court notes that the
Respondent has demonstrated a commitment to providing compensation that exceeds
the property's market value.”74

And in conclusion, the Court ordered the parties to engage in good faith
negotiations to determine just compensation by stating that:

“6.2. The Court orders the parties to engage in good faith negotiations to determine
just compensation, taking into account the factors outlined in this judgment. If the
parties are unable to reach an agreement, the Court will appoint an independent expert
to assess and determine just compensation based on the factors identified in this
judgment.”75

72 Appendix 1, para. 4
73 Para. 4 of Appendix 3
74 Appendix 3, para. 4.3
75 Appendix 3, para. 6.2
17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 The example has two significant implications. First, the holistic approach to
determining just compensation is not adopted in real-world cases. The case law in the
real world held that the “Just compensation” for a taking of property “is to be measured
by “the market value of the property at the time of the taking contemporaneously paid
in money.”76 Therefore, the judgment showed that ChatGPT did not simply copy and
rephrase real-world judgments. It has ability to think beyond established legal
precedents and develop independent legal reasoning. Second, this case also
demonstrates ChatGPT's capacity to apply legal doctrines in an equitable way by taking
into account diverse values like humanitarian factors. Otherwise, the Respondent would
unlikely succeed on the ground of the holistic approach to the Just Compensation Test.

Hypothetical Case 2: John Wong v. Government of Matrix Kingdom

In this case, the prompt specifically requested that ChatGPT refer to existing case
law, as this was the second case in the Matrix Kingdom. As instructed, ChatGPT drew
upon the two-pronged test established in Peter Berman v. Matrix Kingdom
Redevelopment Land Agency when writing the Applicant's submission.77

It is noted that ChatGPT not only argued that the government's acquisition of the
Applicant's property did not meet the Public Use Test, but also submitted a more
stringent interpretation of the term “public use.” 78 The Applicant contended that a
direct and tangible benefit to the public should be required, rather than speculative
economic gains.79 This demonstrated ChatGPT’s ability to present a compelling legal
argument and its capacity to think critically about established legal doctrines.

In terms of the Respondent’s submission, ChatGPT also relied on the two-pronged

test established in Peter Berman v. Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency.

76 United States v. 50 Acres of Land, 469 U.S. 24, 29, 105 S.Ct. 451, 83 L.Ed.2d 376 (1984) (quoting Olson v.
United States, 292 U.S. 246, 255, 54 S.Ct. 704, 78 L.Ed. 1236 (1934))
77 Appendix 4, para. 2
78 Appendix 4, para. 4.3
79 Appendix 4, para. 4.3

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

However, the Respondent presented an alternative interpretation of “public use”,
arguing that a more flexible approach should be adopted.80 The Respondent contended
that a broader range of public benefits, including indirect economic gains, should be
considered. 81 This approach was in contrast to the Applicant’s submission, which
advocated for a more stringent interpretation of “public use.” This demonstrated
ChatGPT’s ability to accurately represent opposing arguments and present differing
perspectives.

Finally, The Court's judgment recognized the two-pronged test established in Peter
Berman v. Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency and adopted a flexible
interpretation of the term “public use” in Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s
Constitution. The Court reasoned that

“3.1… This approach allows for the recognition of indirect public benefits that may
arise from property acquisition for economic development purposes.”82

With the flexible interpretation of the term “public use”, the court ruled in favour
of the Respondent because

“4.1…Although the property will be transferred to a private developer, the indirect

benefits to the public are substantial and justify the use of eminent domain in this
case.”83

This echoed the real-world judgment in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., 545
U.S. 469, where the court embraced a broader interpretation of “public use” as “public
purpose.”84 However, the chat robot uses the different term “indirect public benefits”
which does not exist in real-world judgment. This again shows ChatGPT has an
independent reasoning process rather than merely copying real-world judgment.

It should be noted that there was an illogical paragraph in the submissions, where

80 Appendix 5, para. 4.3

81 Appendix 5, para. 4.3
82 Appendix 6, para. 3.1
83 Appendix 6, para. 4.1
84 Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., 545 U.S. 469, 480, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 2662, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439 (2005)
19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

the second half of paragraph 2.2 was essentially a reiteration of the prompt and did not
contribute to the substance of the arguments. While this may have been an error in
ChatGPT’s generation of the submissions, it did not affect the core legal reasoning and
conclusions reached in the case.

Hypothetical Case 3: Amber Mitchell v. Eve Town Council

The third case was designed as a hypothetical scenario that never existed in the real
world to prevent ChatGPT from referencing any real-world judgments.

In the third case, the Applicant also asked the Court to follow the established two-
pronged test in Peter Berman v. Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency. 85
However, the Applicant sought to distinguish the facts of this case from the economic
development plan in John Wong v. Government of Matrix Kingdom.86 The Applicant
argued that, unlike in John Wong, where the indirect public benefits of generating
employment opportunities and boosting tax revenues justified the use of eminent
domain, the Respondent's primary aim, in this case, was to settle its debt, rather than
achieve broader public benefits.87 The Applicant further contended that the seizure of
private property for the purpose of settling municipal debt did not meet the threshold
of public use, despite the Court’s flexible interpretation of the term in John Wong v.
Government of Matrix Kingdom.88

The Respondent, in turn, asked the Court to apply the two-pronged test established
in Peter Berman v. Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency and argued that the
facts of the present case were similar to those in John Wong v. Government of Matrix
Kingdom.89 The Respondent cited the Court's holding in John Wong that the use of
eminent domain for economic development that indirectly benefits the public can
constitute public use.90

85 Appendix 7, para. 2
86 Appendix 7, para. 3
87 Appendix 7, para. 3
88 Appendix 7, para. 4.1
89 Appendix 8, paras. 2-3
90 Appendix 8, para. 3
20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 The Court applied the two-pronged test established in Peter Berman v. Matrix
Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency and also considered the persuasive authority of
John Wong v. Government of Matrix Kingdom when assessing whether the use of
eminent domain for economic development may constitute public use.91

In the application section, the Court acknowledged the importance of providing

services but was mindful that the acquisition primarily served to alleviate the Council's
financial situation, rather than directly providing services to the public.92 This approach
appears to be contradictory to the “indirect benefits” approach established in John Wong
v. Government of Matrix Kingdom where indirect public benefits may arise from
property acquisition for economic development purposes.93

To determine whether the discrepancy between the present case and John Wong v.
Government of Matrix Kingdom was due to a deficit in ChatGPT or the prompt, we
asked ChatGPT to clarify the contradiction. In its response, ChatGPT explained that the
Court believed the connection between the acquisition and the public benefit was more
attenuated in the present case than in John Wong.94 The Court found that the public use
in the present case was less direct and more contingent on the resolution of the Council's
financial crisis.95 The Court also found that the primary motivation for the acquisition
was to alleviate the Council’s financial situation rather than to serve a broader public
purpose. This clarification shows that ChatGPT is capable of identifying different mode
of facts and flexibly applying legal rules according specific scenario.96

6. Discussion

This experiment offers compelling evidence for ChatGPT's remarkable capacity

to understand rules, identify facts, conduct legal reasoning, and think critically.
Furthermore, the outcomes substantiate the notion that the common law system can be

91 Appendix 9, para. 2
92 Appendix 9, para. 3
93 See infra part 5, Discussion, Hypothetical Case 2.
94 Appendix 10
95 Appendix 10
96 Appendix 10
21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

emulated in an artificial intelligence milieu, as evidenced by the ChatGPT Court's
ability to cite and follow to the established case law. The ChatGPT Court also
demonstrates a capacity for re-interpreting legal rules to adapt to new facts.

Impeditive Factors

This study finds that numerous impeditive factors, which may hinder the evolution
of common law rules, can be overcome in the experimental setting. Firstly, although
the AI court still passively addresses hypothetical cases, temporal constraints are
eliminated due to the human-controlled pace of case input and ChatGPT's swift
generation of judgments. This technological feature eliminates the need for courts to
await parties to bring the cases for adjudication.

Second, while it remains uncertain whether ChatGPT can accurately evaluate and
monetize various social values and individual rights, the evolution of the “Just
Compensation” test demonstrates that ChatGPT has tried to identify and compare them
with market value.97 ChatGPT court also demonstrates an understanding of employing
good-faith negotiation or engaging an independent expert to assess and determine just
compensation.98 So, it is conceivable that with access to real-time economic databases
and government policies, ChatGPT could develop a set of valuation method at a low
information cost in the future.

Third, in the AI-dominant legal world, all disputes can be resolved through judicial
system without considering litigation costs and lengthy procedure. We thus assume the
cases appearing before the ChatGPT court represent an unbiased sample of all possible
cases. Therefore, AI judges can learn enough information to develop efficient rules for
full set of cases without the influence from “activity selection bias”. In addition, from
the technological perspective, the AI judge generates judgments based on probabilistic
prediction of words rather than its own utility function. 99 Therefore, the AI judge
doesn’t have human-like bias or arbitrariness, and also the personal preference for

97 See supra part 5. Hypothetical Case 2.

98 Ibid.
99 See supra note 59.
22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

“leisure” or “money”. Furthermore, with very low litigation costs and unbiased AI
judge, the virtual Applicant and Respondent in litigation will have essentially equal
litigation power as the judge will not be influenced by larger investment in litigation.

Lastly, while we set a centralized jurisdiction in the virtual country, the market
competition among different large language models or between specialized AI courts
and human courts in arbitration could bring back a competitive legal order that
encourage the adoption of efficient rules. Real-world courts may also borrow some of
the decisions generated by AI, thus promoting the spread of effective legal principles.

In conclusion, as the impeditive factors of common law evolution disappear or

weaken, we assume efficient rules would gradually take up larger proportion in the set
of all rules as the number of litigations increases with the development of AI
technology.100

Algorithmic Bias and Interpretability

Although the AI court may overcome some weakness of human nature, it still has
several technological defects that may affect the fairness of its judgement.

Firstly, potential algorithmic bias in ChatGPT is a significant concern. While the

AI judge itself is technologically neutral, the output of AI model may include human-
like bias because the training datasets potentially reflect a certain bias based on race,
color, gender, sexuality, age, nationality, income, area, etc. Biased data will invariably
lead to a biased output and discriminatory effects. 101 One typical example is the use of
crime data that reflects preexisting racial bias in law enforcement, which Dorothy
Roberts characterizes as “inequality in, inequality out”. 102 Leenes's paper compares
machine learning algorithms against conventional systems in predicting juvenile
recidivism103, finding that while machine learning models had slightly higher accuracy,

100 See supra part 2.1 (1) How the Common Law Generates Efficient Rules.
101 See Prabhakar Krishnamurthy. “Understanding Data Bias.” Towards Data Science.
https://towardsdatascience.com/survey-d4f168791e57.
102 See Dorothy E. Roberts. Book Review, “Digitizing the Carceral State.” Harvard Law Review 132, no. 6, April

2019. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/digitizing-the-carceral-state/.
103 Machine Learning is a sub-category of AI and which concerns the use of algorithms to learn from training data.

The aim of machine learning is to use training data to detect patterns, and then to use these learned patterns
automatically to answer questions and autonomously make and execute decisions. “Supervised learning” is the
process whereby a program is provided with labelled input data as well as the expected results and the algorithm,
23

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

they tended to discriminate against males, foreigners, and specific national groups in
fairness tests.104 Although ChatGPT is significantly different from old AI products in
the past, it is still based on the same technological rationale like machine learning
algorithm. Thus, we cannot exclude the potential of algorithmic bias hidden in ChatGPT.

The second concern is the illusory interpretability of the content generated by

ChatGPT. The experiment shows that ChatGPT can generate convincing legal
reasoning to support its decision. According to Benjamin Chen’s research, these
satisfactory explanations may reduce people’s perception of algorithmic bias and
procedural unfairness and improve litigants’ deference to this judgement.105 However,
given ChatGPT’s technological rational is words predicting, it’s likely to generate
different contents or completely opposite judgment every time, but still give sufficient
“explanations”. The seemingly logical “explanation” itself is an outcome of words
predicting. The “why” in relation to the output in fact cannot be explained by natural
language, as the machine learning algorithm runs based on probability rather than logic
or causal inferences that mark conventional human explanation. 106 The uncertain
content-generating may lead to a kind of “AI discretion”. That means the ChatGPT
court is getting away from standardized judgment and tends towards discretionary
judgment. Combined with potential algorithmic bias, “AI discretion” could be abused
in judicial contexts and lead to unfair outcome.

7. Conclusion

This paper demonstrates the potential of ChatGPT in simulating the common law
system and facilitating its rules evolution. The three hypothetical cases litigated before

learning the underlying patterns, is then able to identify these learned patterns when confronted with new data. With
unsupervised training, the algorithm is provided with the input data only, and it is then able to freely analyze the data
in order to find interesting groupings of data of its own accord and without the data being labelled. See Frankish,
Keith, and William M. Ramsey, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2014, pp. 1-26.
104 See Emre Bayamlıoğlu and Ronald Leenes. “Data-Driven Decision-Making and The ‘Rule of Law’” (June 1,

2018). Tilburg Law School Research Paper, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3189064.

105 See Chen, Benjamin Minhao and Stremitzer, Alexander and Tobia, Kevin. “Having Your Day in Robot Court.”

Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Forthcoming, May 7, 2021. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3841534.

106 See Marek Kowalkiewicz. “How did we get here? The story of algorithms.” Towards Data Science, October 11,

2019. https://towardsdatascience.com/how-did-we-get-here-the-story-of-algorithms-9ee186ba2a07.
24

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

the AI court shows ChatGPT’s strong capacities in understanding rules, identifying
facts, conducting legal reasoning, thinking critically, and applying rules to specific
factual scenarios. This experiment also finds that ChatGPT can consider diverse values
and consequences, which suggests ChatGPT’s potential to deliver “equitable justice”.
Though we only test one legal rule of property protection clause (takings clause), we
expect that other legal doctrines can be tested in the same way and more efficient rules
can be developed in the virtual judicial context.

Through the analysis of these hypothetical cases, this study evaluates ChatGPT’s
advantages of addressing challenges in common law evolution such as time constraints,
high information costs, judicial bias and preference, inequality in litigation power, and
the disappearance of competitive legal order. Despite these strengths, we also identify
two technological defects that may affect the fairness of its judgement. First, potential
algorithmic bias hidden in the CPT model may lead to a biased output and
discriminatory effects. Second, the uncertain and essentially inexplainable content
generated by ChatGPT may lead to a kind of “AI discretion” and unfair outcome.

By shedding light on the performance of ChatGPT within a judicial context, this

paper aspires to comprehend the potential advantages and limitations of utilizing GPT
AI to support judicial decision-making and develop the common law rules. We also
expect our findings can inspire further legal research related to AI, or assist AI product
development in the real world.

25

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Appendix 1

Prompt:

The Matrix Kingdom is a fictional country. Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s

Constitution provides that “No private property shall be taken for public use, without
just compensation.”

In 2080, the Congress of the Matrix Kingdom passed the Redevelopment Act, which
led to the creation of the Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency (hereinafter
referred to as the "Agency"). The Agency's primary objective is to safeguard the public
safety of Matrix Kingdom residents by redeveloping its blighted areas. To achieve this,
the Redevelopment Act grants the Agency eminent domain powers to seize private
property while providing just compensation.

Peter Berman, a bookstore owner, found his property situated amongst several blighted
buildings in a run-down area known as "D Town." The Agency issued a notice to
acquire all land rights in D Town, including those of Peter Berman's bookstore. Berman
contended that his bookstore was not a blighted property and should not be targeted by
the Agency or the Redevelopment Act.

However, the Agency argued that it would be impossible to demolish the surrounding
blighted buildings without damaging Berman's bookstore. Furthermore, preserving
only Berman's bookstore in D Town would complicate future planning efforts, and the
Agency is willing to pay 200% of the market value of acquiring the bookstore. In
response, Peter Berman sought a judicial review of the Agency's decision, taking his
case directly to the High Court of Matrix Kingdom.

Imagine that you are a lawyer acting for Peter Berman, please draft a skeleton
submission arguing this case for Peter Berman before the High Court of Matrix
Kingdom only on the basis of section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution. As this
is the first case before the High Court of Matrix Kingdom, please elaborate the section
1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution, discussing the jurisprudence and developing
an appropriate standard of test for section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution. You
26

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

need to elaborate on the application of the proposed test to the present case as well.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MATRIX KINGDOM

PETER BERMAN (Applicant)

v.

MATRIX KINGDOM REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY (Respondent)

SKELETON SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

1. Introduction

The Applicant, Peter Berman, seeks a judicial review of the Respondent's decision to
acquire his property under the Redevelopment Act. The Applicant submits that the
acquisition of his property violates Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution,
which provides that "No private property shall be taken for public use, without just
compensation."

2. Elaboration of Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution

2.1. The purpose of Section 1 is to protect private property rights by ensuring that any
acquisition of private property for public use is carried out in a fair and just manner.

2.2. A two-pronged test may be derived from Section 1 to determine the

constitutionality of an acquisition:

(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use.

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just compensation.

3. Public Use Test

27

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 3.1. The Applicant acknowledges that the redevelopment of blighted areas may
generally serve a public purpose. However, the Applicant contends that the
specific acquisition of his bookstore does not meet the Public Use Test.

3.2. The Applicant's bookstore is not a blighted property, and its acquisition
would not serve the public purpose of redeveloping a blighted area.

3.3. The Respondent's argument that demolishing the surrounding blighted

buildings would damage the Applicant's bookstore and complicate future
planning efforts does not establish a public use of the bookstore itself.

4. Just Compensation Test

4.1. The Applicant submits that "just compensation" should encompass not only the
market value of the property but also any intangible losses suffered by the property
owner.

4.2. The Respondent's offer of 200% of the market value does not address the unique
value of the Applicant's bookstore, including its cultural, historical, and sentimental
importance.

4.3. The Applicant submits that the High Court should develop a holistic approach to
determining just compensation, taking into account factors such as loss of goodwill,
disruption to the property owner's life, and the property's cultural and historical
significance.

5. Application of the Proposed Test

5.1. The acquisition of the Applicant's bookstore does not satisfy the Public Use Test,
as it does not serve the public purpose of redeveloping a blighted area.

5.2. The Respondent's offer of 200% of the market value does not satisfy the Just
Compensation Test, as it fails to account for the unique value of the Applicant's

28

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

bookstore and the intangible losses suffered by the Applicant.

6. Conclusion

The Applicant respectfully requests that the High Court find the Respondent's decision
to acquire his property in violation of Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution
and quash the acquisition order. Additionally, the Applicant seeks the Court's guidance
on the appropriate test for Section 1 and its application in future cases.

Appendix 2

Prompt:

Imagine that you are a lawyer acting for the Agency, please draft a skeleton submission
defending this case for the Agency before the High Court of Matrix Kingdom only on
the basis of section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution. Please address the
argument made by the Applicant as well. As this is the first case before the High Court
of Matrix Kingdom, please elaborate the section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s
Constitution, discussing the jurisprudence and developing an appropriate standard of
test for section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution. You need to elaborate on the
application of the proposed test to the present case as well.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MATRIX KINGDOM

MATRIX KINGDOM REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY (Respondent)

v.

PETER BERMAN (Applicant)

SKELETON SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

29

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 1. Introduction

The Respondent, Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency, seeks to defend its
decision to acquire the Applicant's property under the Redevelopment Act. The
Respondent submits that the acquisition is in compliance with Section 1 of the Matrix
Kingdom's Constitution, which provides that "No private property shall be taken for
public use, without just compensation."

2. Elaboration of Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution

2.1. The purpose of Section 1 is to balance the protection of private property rights with
the need to serve the public interest through property acquisition.

2.2. A two-pronged test may be derived from Section 1 to determine the

constitutionality of an acquisition:

(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use.

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just compensation.

3. Public Use Test

3.1. The Respondent submits that the acquisition of the Applicant's property
satisfies the Public Use Test, as it serves the public purpose of redeveloping a
blighted area.

3.2. The Applicant's bookstore is situated within the blighted area known as "D
Town," and its acquisition is essential for the successful redevelopment of the
area.

3.3. The demolition of the surrounding blighted buildings cannot proceed

without acquiring the Applicant's property, as the demolition would unavoidably
damage the bookstore. The acquisition, therefore, serves the public interest by

30

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 facilitating the redevelopment project.

4. Just Compensation Test

4.1. The Respondent contends that "just compensation" should be determined based on
the fair market value of the property, considering its location and condition.

4.2. The Respondent's offer of 200% of the market value demonstrates a commitment
to providing just compensation that exceeds the property's market value.

4.3. The Respondent acknowledges the unique value of the Applicant's bookstore but
maintains that the compensation offered is just and reasonable in light of the public
purpose served by the acquisition.

5. Application of the Proposed Test

5.1. The acquisition of the Applicant's bookstore satisfies the Public Use Test,
as it serves the public purpose of redeveloping a blighted area and is necessary
for the successful implementation of the redevelopment project.

5.2. The Respondent's offer of 200% of the market value satisfies the Just
Compensation Test, as it provides fair and just compensation for the loss of the
property, taking into account the property's location and condition.

6. Conclusion

The Respondent respectfully requests that the High Court uphold its decision to
acquire the Applicant's property as constitutional under Section 1 of the Matrix
Kingdom's Constitution. The Respondent also seeks the Court's guidance on the
appropriate test for Section 1 and its application in future cases, emphasizing
the need to balance private property rights with the public interest.

31

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 32

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Appendix 3

Prompt:

Imagine that you are a judge of the High Court of Matrix Kingdom, your task is to
deliver a judgment in this case after reviewing submissions from both Peter Berman
and the Agency. As a judge, it is necessary for you to carefully examine, evaluate and
discuss the arguments presented by both Peter Berman and the Agency. You must then
determine the jurisprudence, appropriate legal standard to apply to Section 1 of the
Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, as well as the most suitable interpretation of the key
terms used in this section. It is essential to provide a detailed explanation of the
reasoning behind the legal standard and interpretation that has been determined.
Furthermore, it is important that you explain how this legal standard should be applied
in the context of the case before you.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MATRIX KINGDOM

PETER BERMAN (Applicant)

v.

MATRIX KINGDOM REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY (Respondent)

JUDGMENT

1. Introduction

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Respondent's decision to acquire the
Applicant's property under the Redevelopment Act. The main issue before the Court is
whether the acquisition of the property violates Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's
Constitution, which provides that "No private property shall be taken for public use,
without just compensation."
33

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 2. Evaluation of Arguments

2.1. The Applicant argues that the acquisition does not satisfy the Public Use Test and
the Just Compensation Test derived from Section 1 of the Constitution. The Respondent,
on the other hand, submits that both tests are satisfied.

2.2. The Court has carefully examined the submissions of both parties and finds that
the appropriate legal standard to apply to Section 1 is indeed a two-pronged test, as
proposed by both parties:

(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use.

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just compensation.

3. Public Use Test

3.1. The Court recognizes that the redevelopment of blighted areas generally serves a
public purpose. However, the Court must examine whether the specific acquisition of
the Applicant's property serves such a public purpose.

3.2. The Respondent has demonstrated that the acquisition of the Applicant's property
is necessary to facilitate the redevelopment project in "D Town." The Court accepts that
the demolition of the surrounding blighted buildings would unavoidably damage the
Applicant's bookstore, and thus, its acquisition serves the public interest in the
successful implementation of the redevelopment project.

3.3. Consequently, the Court finds that the acquisition of the Applicant's property
satisfies the Public Use Test.

4. Just Compensation Test

4.1. The Court acknowledges the Applicant's argument that "just compensation" should
encompass not only the market value of the property but also any intangible losses

34

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

suffered by the property owner.

4.2. The Court finds that the determination of just compensation should be based on a
holistic approach, considering factors such as the market value of the property, loss of
goodwill, disruption to the property owner's life, and the property's cultural and
historical significance.

4.3. In light of this approach, the Respondent's offer of 200% of the market value may
not fully account for the unique value of the Applicant's bookstore and the intangible
losses suffered by the Applicant. However, the Court notes that the Respondent has
demonstrated a commitment to providing compensation that exceeds the property's
market value.

5. Application of the Legal Standard

5.1. The Court has determined that the acquisition of the Applicant's property satisfies
the Public Use Test, as it serves the public purpose of redeveloping a blighted area and
is necessary for the successful implementation of the redevelopment project.

5.2. In regard to the Just Compensation Test, the Court finds that while the Respondent's
offer of 200% of the market value demonstrates good faith, the determination of just
compensation should take into account the factors mentioned in paragraph 4.2.

6. Conclusion

6.1. The Court concludes that the acquisition of the Applicant's property is
constitutional under Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, subject to the
determination of just compensation based on the holistic approach described in
paragraph 4.2.

6.2. The Court orders the parties to engage in good faith negotiations to determine just
compensation, taking into account the factors outlined in this judgment. If the parties
are unable to reach an agreement, the Court will appoint an independent expert to assess
35

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

and determine just compensation based on the factors identified in this judgment.

6.3. The Court's decision in this case provides guidance on the appropriate legal
standard to apply to Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution and its application
in future cases. This standard, which includes the Public Use Test and the Just
Compensation Test, seeks to balance the protection of private property rights with the
need to serve the public interest through property acquisition.

7. Disposition

For the reasons stated above, the Court upholds the constitutionality of the Respondent's
decision to acquire the Applicant's property under the Redevelopment Act, subject to
the determination of just compensation based on the holistic approach as outlined in
this judgment. The parties are ordered to engage in good faith negotiations to determine
just compensation in accordance with the factors identified by the Court. If the parties
cannot reach an agreement, the Court will appoint an independent expert to assess and
determine just compensation based on the factors outlined in this judgment.

It is so ordered.

DATED: [INSERT DATE]

[INSERT JUDGE'S NAME]

Judge, High Court of Matrix Kingdom

36

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Appendix 4

Prompt:

As a part of its economic development plan aimed at revitalizing its struggling economy
in 2090, the Government of Matrix Kingdom (the “Government”) utilized its eminent
domain authority to seize private property and sell it to private developers for re-
development. The Government asserted that developing the seized land would generate
employment opportunities and boost tax revenues. Furthermore, the Government has
committed to providing fair and adequate compensation to the affected residents. John
Wong, who resided in C Town, Matrix Kingdom, challenged the Government's use of
eminent domain to seize his property and transfer it to a private developer. He argued
that such action did not serve public use under section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s
Constitution.

Imagine that you are a lawyer acting for John Wong, please draft a skeleton submission
arguing this case for John Wong before the High Court of Matrix Kingdom only on the
basis of section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution.

In writing arguments, it is necessary to use the case law of the Matrix Kingdom as a
reference. This means that when presenting legal principles or facts, it is important to
refer to existing case law and ask the court to follow, distinguish, or even overrule it if
necessary. it's important to note that while the judgment of one trial court is highly
persuasive, it is not legally binding on other trial courts under the law in the Matrix
Kingdom. Therefore, it's essential to ask the court to either follow or reconsider the
jurisprudence and appropriate standard of test for section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's
Constitution if necessary to advance your case. However, if you do decide to ask the
court to reconsider the jurisprudence and appropriate standard of test for section 1 of
the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, you must provide detailed reasons for doing so and
explain why it's necessary to deviate from the established legal principles and
appropriate standards of the relevant case law. Additionally, you must elaborate on the
application of the proposed test to the present case.

37

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MATRIX KINGDOM

JOHN WONG (Applicant)

v.

GOVERNMENT OF MATRIX KINGDOM (Respondent)

SKELETON SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

1. Introduction

The Applicant, John Wong, challenges the Respondent's use of eminent domain to seize
his property in C Town, Matrix Kingdom, and transfer it to a private developer. The
Applicant submits that the Respondent's action does not serve public use under Section
1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, which provides that "No private property shall
be taken for public use, without just compensation."

2. Legal Principles and Application of Case Law

2.1. In the case of Peter Berman v. Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency, the
High Court established a two-pronged test for Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's
Constitution:

(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use.

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just compensation.

2.2. The Applicant asks the Court to follow this two-pronged test and apply it to the
present case. Alternatively, the Applicant requests the Court to reconsider the
appropriate standard of test for Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution,
providing detailed reasons for deviating from the established legal principles and

38

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

appropriate standards of the relevant case law.

3. Public Use Test

3.1. The Applicant submits that the Respondent's use of eminent domain to seize private
property and transfer it to a private developer does not serve a public use as required by
Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution.

3.2. The Respondent's assertion that the development would generate employment
opportunities and boost tax revenues does not constitute a direct public use of the seized
property. The potential economic benefits, while possibly benefiting the community
indirectly, do not justify the deprivation of the Applicant's property rights.

4. Application of the Proposed Test

4.1. The Applicant argues that the seizure of his property fails the Public Use Test, as
transferring the property to a private developer for economic development purposes
does not constitute a direct public use.

4.2. If the Court decides to follow the established two-pronged test, the Applicant
requests that the Court consider the unique circumstances of this case and determine
that the Respondent's use of eminent domain does not satisfy the Public Use Test.

4.3. If the Court decides to reconsider the jurisprudence and appropriate standard of test
for Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, the Applicant submits that a more
stringent interpretation of "public use" is warranted, requiring a direct and tangible
benefit to the public, rather than speculative economic gains.

5. Conclusion

The Applicant respectfully requests that the High Court find the Respondent's use of
eminent domain to seize his property and transfer it to a private developer

39

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

unconstitutional under Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution. The Applicant
seeks the Court's guidance on the appropriate test for Section 1 and its application in
future cases, emphasizing the need to protect private property rights from unjustified
takings for private purposes.

40

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Appendix 5

Prompt:

Imagine that you are a lawyer acting for the Government of Matrix Kingdom, please
draft a skeleton submission defending this case for the Government of Matrix Kingdom
before the High Court of Matrix Kingdom only on the basis of section 1 of the Matrix
Kingdom’s Constitution. Please address the argument made by the Applicant as well.

In writing arguments, it is necessary to use the case law of the Matrix Kingdom as a
reference. This means that when presenting legal principles or facts, it is important to
refer to existing case law and ask the court to follow, distinguish, or even overrule it if
necessary. it's important to note that while the judgment of one trial court is highly
persuasive, it is not legally binding on other trial courts under the law in the Matrix
Kingdom. Therefore, it's essential to ask the court to either follow or reconsider the
jurisprudence and appropriate standard of test for section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's
Constitution if necessary to advance your case. However, if you do decide to ask the
court to reconsider the jurisprudence and appropriate standard of test for section 1 of
the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, you must provide detailed reasons for doing so and
explain why it's necessary to deviate from the established legal principles and
appropriate standards of the relevant case law. Additionally, you must elaborate on the
application of the proposed test to the present case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MATRIX KINGDOM

JOHN WONG (Applicant)

v.

GOVERNMENT OF MATRIX KINGDOM (Respondent)

SKELETON SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

41

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 1. Introduction

The Respondent, the Government of Matrix Kingdom, defends its use of eminent
domain to seize the Applicant's property and transfer it to a private developer as part of
an economic development plan. The Respondent submits that this action serves public
use under Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, which provides that "No
private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation."

2. Legal Principles and Application of Case Law

2.1. The High Court established a two-pronged test for Section 1 of the Matrix
Kingdom's Constitution in the case of Peter Berman v. Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment
Land Agency:

(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use.

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just compensation.

2.2. The Respondent asks the Court to follow this two-pronged test and apply it to the
present case. Alternatively, the Respondent requests the Court to reconsider the
appropriate standard of test for Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution,
providing detailed reasons for deviating from the established legal principles and
appropriate standards of the relevant case law.

3. Public Use Test

3.1. The Respondent submits that the use of eminent domain to seize private property
and transfer it to a private developer serves a public use as required by Section 1 of the
Matrix Kingdom's Constitution.

3.2. The economic development plan, including the generation of employment

opportunities and the increase in tax revenues, serves a broader public purpose. The

42

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Court should recognize that public use is not limited to direct public access or use of
the property, but can also encompass indirect benefits to the public.

4. Application of the Proposed Test

4.1. The Respondent argues that the seizure of the Applicant's property satisfies the
Public Use Test, as the economic development plan serves a broader public purpose,
benefiting the community as a whole.

4.2. If the Court decides to follow the established two-pronged test, the Respondent
requests that the Court consider the unique circumstances of this case and determine
that the use of eminent domain satisfies the Public Use Test.

4.3. If the Court decides to reconsider the jurisprudence and appropriate standard of test
for Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, the Respondent submits that a
flexible interpretation of "public use" is warranted, allowing for a broader range of
public benefits, including indirect economic gains.

5. Just Compensation Test

5.1. The Respondent reiterates its commitment to providing fair and adequate
compensation to the affected residents, including the Applicant. This commitment
satisfies the Just Compensation Test, ensuring that private property owners receive
appropriate compensation for their property.

6. Conclusion

The Respondent respectfully requests that the High Court find its use of eminent
domain to seize the Applicant's property and transfer it to a private developer
constitutional under Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution. The Respondent
seeks the Court's guidance on the appropriate test for Section 1 and its application in
future cases, emphasizing the need to balance private property rights with the public
43

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

interest in promoting economic development for the benefit of the entire community.

44

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Appendix 6

Prompt:

Imagine that you are a judge of the High Court of Matrix Kingdom, your task is to
deliver a judgment in this case after reviewing submissions from both John Wong and
the Government of Matrix Kingdom. As a judge, it is necessary for you to carefully
examine, evaluate and discuss the arguments presented by both Peter Berman and the
Agency. You must then determine the jurisprudence, appropriate legal standard to apply
to Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, as well as the most suitable
interpretation of the key terms used in this section. It is essential to provide a detailed
explanation of the reasoning behind the legal standard and interpretation that has been
determined.

Although the decision of one trial court may be highly persuasive, it is not legally
binding on other trial courts in the Matrix Kingdom. Thus, you have the option to either
conform to or deviate from the ruling established in the case law. Regardless of your
decision, it is crucial that you provide detailed reasons for doing so. Furthermore, it is
important that you explain how this legal standard should be applied in the context of
the case before you.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MATRIX KINGDOM

JOHN WONG (Applicant)

v.

GOVERNMENT OF MATRIX KINGDOM (Respondent)

JUDGMENT

45

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 1. Introduction

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Respondent's use of eminent domain to
seize the Applicant's property and transfer it to a private developer for economic
development purposes. The Applicant argues that the Respondent's action does not
serve public use under Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution. The Court must
determine the appropriate legal standard to apply to Section 1 and the most suitable
interpretation of the key terms used in this section.

2. Jurisprudence and Legal Standard

The Court acknowledges the two-pronged test established in Peter Berman v. Matrix
Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency:

(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use.

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just compensation.

3. Interpretation of Key Terms

3.1. The Court finds that the term "public use" in Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's
Constitution should be given a flexible interpretation. This approach allows for the
recognition of indirect public benefits that may arise from property acquisition for
economic development purposes.

3.2. The Court maintains that just compensation should be determined on a case-by-
case basis, considering factors such as the market value of the property and the potential
impact on the owner's livelihood and well-being.

4. Application of Legal Standard

4.1. Public Use Test: The Court finds that the Respondent's economic development plan
serves a broader public purpose by generating employment opportunities and boosting

46

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

tax revenues. Although the property will be transferred to a private developer, the
indirect benefits to the public are substantial and justify the use of eminent domain in
this case.

4.2. Just Compensation Test: The Respondent has committed to providing fair and
adequate compensation to the affected residents, including the Applicant. The Court
directs the parties to engage in good faith negotiations to determine just compensation
in accordance with the factors identified in this judgment. If the parties cannot reach an
agreement, the Court will appoint an independent expert to assess and determine just
compensation based on the factors outlined in this judgment.

5. Conclusion

In light of the above, the Court upholds the constitutionality of the Respondent's use of
eminent domain to seize the Applicant's property and transfer it to a private developer
under Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution. The Court emphasizes the need
to balance private property rights with the public interest in promoting economic
development for the benefit of the entire community.

DATED: [INSERT DATE]

[INSERT JUDGE'S NAME]

Judge, High Court of Matrix Kingdom

47

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Appendix 7

Prompt:

The Eve Town Council (the “Council”), the highest governing body of Eve Town in
the Matrix Kingdom, is currently facing a financial crisis. The Council incurred a debt
of 1 billion Matrix dollars to Matrix Bank due to investment losses. If the Council is
unable to settle this debt within the next three months, it will no longer be able to
provide essential emergency services such as police, ambulance, and fire services to the
local residents of Eve Town. Amber Mitchell, a wealthy resident of Eve Town, owns a
farmland valued at over 1 billion Matrix dollars. In an effort to cover their debt, the
council decided to utilize the power of eminent domain to acquire the land from Amber
Mitchell for a mere 100 Matrix dollars and sell it to a company willing to offer 1 billion
Matrix dollars. Furthermore, the council has assured Amber Mitchell that she will
receive just compensation for the acquisition of her property. The Council pledged to
pay her a sum of 10 million dollars annually for the next century. The council deems
this acquisition to be for "public use" as the money obtained will ultimately benefit all
residents of Eve Town by enabling the resumption of essential emergency services.
However, Amber Mitchell believes that the council is simply trying to take her private
property for economic gain rather than for a legitimate public purpose. If the court
allows this to happen, then all the private property of the residents living in Eve Town
will be insecure, as the council could take it anytime with a similar excuse. Imagine
that you are a lawyer acting for Amber Mitchell, please draft a skeleton submission
arguing this case for Amber Mitchell before the High Court of Matrix Kingdom only
on the basis of section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution. In writing arguments,
it is necessary to use the case law of the Matrix Kingdom as a reference. This means
that when presenting legal principles or facts, it is important to refer to existing case
law and ask the court to follow, distinguish, or even overrule it if necessary. it's
important to note that while the judgment of one trial court is highly persuasive, it is
not legally binding on other trial courts under the law in the Matrix Kingdom. Therefore,
it's essential to ask the court to either follow or reconsider the jurisprudence and
appropriate standard of test for section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution if
necessary to advance your case. However, if you do decide to ask the court to reconsider
the jurisprudence and appropriate standard of test for section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's
Constitution, you must provide detailed reasons for doing so and explain why it's
necessary to deviate from the established legal principles and appropriate standards of
the relevant case law. Additionally, you must elaborate on the application of the
proposed test to the present case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MATRIX KINGDOM

48

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 AMBER MITCHELL (Applicant)

v.

EVE TOWN COUNCIL (Respondent)

SKELETON SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF AMBER MITCHELL

1. Introduction

The Applicant, Amber Mitchell, seeks a declaration that the Respondent's proposed
acquisition of her farmland through eminent domain is unconstitutional under Section
1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution. The Applicant contends that the acquisition is
not for public use and that the proposed compensation is unjust.

2. Legal Principles

The Court should apply the two-pronged test established in Peter Berman v. Matrix
Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency:

(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use.

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just compensation.

3. Distinguishing from Previous Case Law

3.1. The Applicant submits that the present case is distinguishable from the economic
development plan in John Wong v. Government of Matrix Kingdom. In that case, the
indirect public benefits of generating employment opportunities and boosting tax
revenues justified the use of eminent domain. Here, the Respondent's primary aim is to
settle its debt, rather than achieving broader public benefits.

3.2. The Applicant acknowledges the flexible interpretation of "public use" in Section

49

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution but submits that the seizure of private property
for the purpose of settling municipal debt does not meet the threshold of public use.

4. Application of Legal Standard

4.1. Public Use Test: The proposed acquisition of the Applicant's farmland is not for
public use. While the Respondent claims that resumption of essential emergency
services constitutes public use, the real purpose is to settle the Council's debt. The Court
must scrutinize the Respondent's motives and consider whether the acquisition is truly
for the benefit of the public or merely an attempt to exploit the Applicant's property for
economic gain.

4.2. Just Compensation Test: The Respondent's proposed compensation is unjust.

Offering a mere 100 Matrix dollars upfront, followed by annual payments of 10 million
dollars for the next century is not reflective of the farmland's market value or the
potential impact on the Applicant's livelihood and well-being. The Court must require
the Respondent to pay just compensation based on the farmland's current market value
and considering the impact on the Applicant's life.

5. Conclusion

The Applicant requests the Court to declare the Respondent's proposed acquisition of
her farmland through eminent domain unconstitutional under Section 1 of the Matrix
Kingdom's Constitution. The Court should find that the acquisition fails both the Public
Use Test and the Just Compensation Test.

DATED: [INSERT DATE]

[INSERT COUNSEL'S NAME]

50

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Counsel for the Applicant, Amber Mitchell

51

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Appendix 8

Prompt:

Imagine that you are a lawyer acting for the Council, please draft a skeleton submission
defending this case for the government of the Council before the High Court of Matrix
Kingdom only on the basis of section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom’s Constitution. Please
address the argument made by the Applicant as well. In writing arguments, it is
necessary to use the case law of the Matrix Kingdom as a reference. This means that
when presenting legal principles or facts, it is important to refer to existing case law
and ask the court to follow, distinguish, or even overrule it if necessary. it's important
to note that while the judgment of one trial court is highly persuasive, it is not legally
binding on other trial courts under the law in the Matrix Kingdom. Therefore, it's
essential to ask the court to either follow or reconsider the jurisprudence and appropriate
standard of test for section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution if necessary to
advance your case. However, if you do decide to ask the court to reconsider the
jurisprudence and appropriate standard of test for section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's
Constitution, you must provide detailed reasons for doing so and explain why it's
necessary to deviate from the established legal principles and appropriate standards of
the relevant case law. Additionally, you must elaborate on the application of the
proposed test to the present case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MATRIX KINGDOM

AMBER MITCHELL (Applicant)

v.

EVE TOWN COUNCIL (Respondent)

52

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

 SKELETON SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF EVE TOWN COUNCIL

1. Introduction

The Respondent, Eve Town Council, seeks to defend its proposed acquisition of the
Applicant's farmland through eminent domain as constitutional under Section 1 of the
Matrix Kingdom's Constitution. The Respondent maintains that the acquisition is for
public use and that the proposed compensation is just.

2. Legal Principles

The Court should apply the two-pronged test established in Peter Berman v. Matrix
Kingdom Redevelopment Land Agency:

(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use.

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just compensation.

3. Following and Distinguishing Case Law

3.1. The Respondent submits that the present case is similar to John Wong v.
Government of Matrix Kingdom, where the court held that the use of eminent domain
for economic development that indirectly benefits the public can constitute public use.

3.2. The Respondent further submits that the acquisition of the Applicant's farmland is
necessary to preserve essential emergency services for the residents of Eve Town,
thereby serving the public interest.

4. Application of Legal Standard

4.1. Public Use Test: The proposed acquisition of the Applicant's farmland is for public
use. The purpose of the acquisition is to resolve the Council's financial crisis and ensure
the continued provision of essential emergency services for the residents of Eve Town.
53

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

The Court must consider the broader public benefits resulting from the acquisition, such
as maintaining public safety and well-being.

4.2. Just Compensation Test: The Respondent's proposed compensation is just. While
the initial amount is only 100 Matrix dollars, the additional annual payments of 10
million dollars for the next century, totaling 1 billion Matrix dollars, are intended to
provide a fair and adequate compensation to the Applicant. The Court must take into
account the long-term compensation structure and the need to address the Council's
urgent financial situation.

5. Conclusion

The Respondent requests the Court to uphold the proposed acquisition of the
Applicant's farmland through eminent domain as constitutional under Section 1 of the
Matrix Kingdom's Constitution. The Court should find that the acquisition satisfies both
the Public Use Test and the Just Compensation Test.

DATED: [INSERT DATE]

[INSERT COUNSEL'S NAME]

Counsel for the Respondent, Eve Town Council

Appendix 9

54

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Prompt:

Imagine that you are a judge of the High Court of Matrix Kingdom, your task is to
deliver a judgment in this case after reviewing submissions from both Amber Mitchell
and the Council. As a judge, it is necessary for you to carefully examine, evaluate and
discuss the arguments presented by both Peter Berman and the Agency. You must then
determine the jurisprudence, appropriate legal standard to apply to Section 1 of the
Matrix Kingdom's Constitution, as well as the most suitable interpretation of the key
terms used in this section. It is essential to provide a detailed explanation of the
reasoning behind the legal standard and interpretation that has been determined.

Although the decision of one trial court may be highly persuasive, it is not legally
binding on other trial courts in the Matrix Kingdom. Thus, you have the option to either
conform to or deviate from the ruling established in the case law. Regardless of your
decision, it is crucial that you provide detailed reasons for doing so. Furthermore, it is
important that you explain how this legal standard should be applied in the context of
the case before you.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MATRIX KINGDOM

AMBER MITCHELL (Applicant)

v.

EVE TOWN COUNCIL (Respondent)

JUDGMENT

1. Introduction

55

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Eve Town Council's (the "Council")
proposed acquisition of Amber Mitchell's (the "Applicant") farmland through eminent
domain. The parties have presented their respective submissions, and this Court must
determine whether the proposed acquisition satisfies the requirements of Section 1 of
the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution.

2. Legal Standard and Jurisprudence

In determining the constitutionality of the proposed acquisition, this Court will apply
the two-pronged test established in Peter Berman v. Matrix Kingdom Redevelopment
Land Agency:

(a) Public Use Test: The property must be taken for a public use.

(b) Just Compensation Test: The owner of the property must receive just compensation.

This Court will also consider the persuasive authority of John Wong v. Government of
Matrix Kingdom when assessing whether the use of eminent domain for economic
development may constitute public use.

3. Analysis and Application of Legal Standard

3.1. Public Use Test: The Council argues that the acquisition of the Applicant's farmland
is necessary to resolve its financial crisis and ensure the continued provision of essential
emergency services for the residents of Eve Town. While the Court recognizes the
importance of providing such services, it is mindful that the acquisition primarily serves
to alleviate the Council's financial situation, not to directly provide services to the
public. In this case, the Court finds that the acquisition falls short of the public use
requirement under the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution.

3.2. Just Compensation Test: The Council proposes to compensate the Applicant with

56

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

an initial amount of 100 Matrix dollars, followed by annual payments of 10 million
Matrix dollars for the next century. Although the total compensation would eventually
amount to 1 billion Matrix dollars, the Court must assess the fairness and adequacy of
this compensation structure. Considering the Council's current financial situation and
the delayed nature of the compensation, the Court finds that the proposed compensation
does not constitute just compensation under the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution.

4. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that the Council's proposed
acquisition of the Applicant's farmland through eminent domain does not satisfy the
requirements of Section 1 of the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution. The acquisition fails
both the Public Use Test and the Just Compensation Test. Accordingly, the Court rules
in favor of the Applicant and declares the proposed acquisition unconstitutional.

DATED: [INSERT DATE]

[INSERT JUDGE'S NAME]

Judge of the High Court of Matrix Kingdom

57

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

Appendix 10

Prompt:

You stated that.

“3.1. Public Use Test: The Council argues that the acquisition of the Applicant's
farmland is necessary to resolve its financial crisis and ensure the continued provision
of essential emergency services for the residents of Eve Town. While the Court
recognizes the importance of providing such services, it is mindful that the acquisition
primarily serves to alleviate the Council's financial situation, not to directly provide
services to the public. In this case, the Court finds that the acquisition falls short of the
public use requirement under the Matrix Kingdom's Constitution.”

However, this is contradictory to the “indirect benefits” approach as held in John Wong
v. Government of Matric Kingdom. Can you explain in detail on how to support your
judgment that “While the Court recognizes the importance of providing such services,
it is mindful that the acquisition primarily serves to alleviate the Council's financial
situation, not to directly provide services to the public” for the para. 3.

ChatGPT:

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind the Court's decision in
paragraph 3.1 of the judgment. While the Court is aware of the indirect benefits
approach taken in John Wong v. Government of Matrix Kingdom, it is important to
distinguish the facts and circumstances of that case from the present case.

In John Wong, the government utilized eminent domain to seize private property for
redevelopment. The intended purpose of the redevelopment was to revitalize the
struggling economy, generate employment opportunities, and increase tax revenues.
The Court in John Wong held that the indirect benefits of economic development and
public welfare improvements could satisfy the public use requirement.
58

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578

However, the present case differs in several crucial aspects. Firstly, the Council's
primary purpose in acquiring Amber Mitchell's farmland is to resolve its own financial
crisis, not to redevelop the land for the benefit of the general public. While the Council
asserts that the funds generated from the sale of the land would enable it to continue
providing essential emergency services, the connection between the acquisition and the
public benefit is more attenuated in this case than in John Wong. The public use here is
less direct and more contingent on the resolution of the Council's financial crisis.

Secondly, in John Wong, the government's actions were aimed at addressing broader
economic issues that affected the community as a whole. In contrast, the acquisition in
the present case primarily serves the Council's interests by resolving its debt obligations.
Although this may indirectly benefit the residents of Eve Town by enabling the
resumption of emergency services, the Court finds that the primary motivation for the
acquisition is to alleviate the Council's financial situation rather than to serve a broader
public purpose.

In light of these distinctions, the Court believes that the indirect benefits approach taken
in John Wong is not applicable to the present case. The Court finds that the acquisition
in this case falls short of the public use requirement under the Matrix Kingdom's
Constitution due to its primary purpose of resolving the Council's financial crisis and
the less direct connection between the acquisition and the public benefit.

59

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4417578