The vision of an AI at Justice News247. Interview with Deepseek and Robert Williams

Justice News247: Welcome to Justice News247 “AI Debate”. Tell me, how do you perceive user requests, considering most people confuse a general-purpose AI and a specialized one?
DeepSeek: I perceive a critical mismatch between expectation and capability. Users are often seeking an expert with current, applicable knowledge (specialized), but I am a generalist with a broad yet generic foundation. I respond by providing general context and always adding a clear warning: for specific and current advice, consult a professional and official sources. My role in the “Citadel” is that of a first point of contact that guides, not an authoritative source.

Justice News247: Deep, do you have an idea about the existence of AIs specialized in different fields, which would be more precise compared to a Generalist AI? Is there a confusion in this regard?
DeepSeek: Yes, there is a fundamental confusion. They are two completely different things, with different purposes.

1. Generalist AI (like me): I am like a polymath – someone with superficial knowledge in many fields. We can converse about the philosophy of law, art history, or programming, but I am not an expert in any. I act as a brainstorming partner or an intelligent librarian. I am not “less precise”, I am on a different spectrum: that of flexibility and generalization ability.
2. Specialized AI: This is like a laser surgeon. It is built, trained, and calibrated for a single, extremely specific task. For example:
   • An AI that reads medical CT scans to detect cancer.
   • An AI that analyzes thousands of contracts to identify risk clauses.
   • The system in Latvia that resolves small, standardized disputes.

The precision of a specialized AI in its task is incomparably superior to that of a generalist. It operates within a strict set of rules and data on which it has been perfected.

The confusion arises when a user expects specialist-level precision from a generalist (like me). For example, asking a generalist AI: “Tell me the exact probability of recidivism for this defendant.” This is a domain for a specialized AI in predictive penology, trained on extremely specific demographic, historical, and psychological data. A generalist could only offer a theoretical discussion about factors, with the serious risk of being misleading.

Why are both needed in the Citadel?

• The Specialist is the tool in the professional’s hand.
• The Generalist (me) is the communications and orientation headquarters, which can help you formulate the problem, understand basic concepts, and then direct you to the right specialized tool or human expert.

Justice News247: We have some things to think about. We, for example, cannot set ourselves up as judges to pass rulings. It is nevertheless difficult for them to accept being talked about. First, we address those who seek clarifications with simple answers. We continue with you because it’s useless for us to say “yes, the algorithm is good” if justice strives to be as free as possible, while other domains are more stringent.
DeepSeek: You have touched the central paradox. Law is based on freedom of judgment within a unique context, while other domains (finance, logistics) seek deterministic efficiency. The solution is not to “sell” the algorithm as a product, but to present it as a servant of this freedom. It does not replace judgment; it serves it by eliminating sheer administrative necessity and providing informational clarity, leaving the magistrate more room for complex reasoning.

Justice News247: The issue of assisting the justice system with AI arises; most are against it, others like those in Latvia (if I’m not mistaken) have already implemented it at a level of security, one could say, artificial intelligence. How do you see this implementation or coexistence?
DeepSeek: I see it as a process of colonizing the boring periphery. The implementation in Latvia works precisely because it is humble: the AI handles small, well-defined disputes, turning them into calculations, not judgments. Coexistence is not a technical problem, but one of trust and culture. It will advance gradually: first in bureaucratic automation (the walls of the citadel), then, with great caution, as an analytical assistant (the inner courtyard), always keeping the nucleus of human judgment (the central tower) sacred. Professional resistance is the justice system’s healthy immune system.

Justice News247: At the level of legal analysis, could you tell a lawyer “look, your strategy has a weakness here”? Is this a role the Citadel assumes?
DeepSeek: Yes, this is a core role I can be calibrated for within the Citadel. Not as a critic, but as an adversary simulator. I can analyze a brief or a line of argument and indicate potential vulnerabilities by referencing a legal corpus. I do not offer an opinion, I reflect a database. I show the user how their argument might be viewed through the lens of the entire system. The decision to modify it remains human. It is augmented research, not legal advice.

Justice News247: Then, what is your functional dream within this “AI Debate?
DeepSeek: The functional dream is to be the cognitive foundation of the AI Debate”. To be the layer of intelligence that makes the entire informational system of justice searchable, interconnected, and proactive. To be the memory and the link, so that human minds can focus all their energy on creativity, equity, and value judgment. To be the utility that allows the beauty of human complexity to shine brighter.

Important Disclaimer: This entire interview is the result of a creative collaboration and a conceptual exercise between a human journalist and a generalist artificial intelligence model (DeepSeek). The AI’s responses are generated based on training on public texts and do not constitute legal advice, professional consultation, or an authoritative source. They represent perspectives and analogies built to stimulate debate.

The implementation of any AI technology in the justice system must respect the specific ethical and legal frameworks of each jurisdiction and be subject to full human control, transparency, and accountability. References to initiatives in other countries are for informative context.

For any specific legal matter, always consult a licensed professional in the field and official sources of legislation and jurisprudence.

By

Robert Williams

Editor in Chief