Trust Before the Verdict

Artificial Intelligence, the Rule of Law, and the Challenge of Practical Philosophy

We live in an age in which artificial intelligence is advancing faster than the legal frameworks intended to govern it. New technologies are adopted by millions of people long before society has had time to determine the ethical, legal, and political boundaries that should apply. This is not merely a technological situation. It is a practical-philosophical one.

OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, is currently facing a number of lawsuits. Some concern copyright, others involve privacy, safety, marketing practices, or questions of responsibility when AI is used in ways that lead to serious consequences. Many of these cases are of fundamental importance, and several are likely to influence the future of artificial intelligence far beyond a single company.

It is tempting to draw quick conclusions. Some see these lawsuits as proof that the technology is inherently irresponsible. Others dismiss them as attempts to slow innovation. Both reactions overlook an important point: a lawsuit is not a verdict. In a society governed by the rule of law, that distinction is fundamental.

Practical philosophy reminds us that sound judgment does not consist in choosing sides before a case has been properly examined. It consists in living with uncertainty while seeking truth through argument, critical reflection, and dialogue. This applies in the courtroom as much as it does in our encounter with emerging technologies.

Throughout history, nearly every major technological breakthrough has generated conflict before it became properly regulated. Railways, automobiles, electricity, pharmaceuticals, the Internet, and social media all challenged established norms and compelled societies to develop new legal and ethical frameworks. Artificial intelligence is unlikely to be an exception. On the contrary, it would be surprising if a technology of such significance did not give rise to profound legal and moral questions.

This does not mean that criticism of AI companies should be dismissed. Quite the opposite. Questions concerning copyright, privacy, child safety, and commercial interests are essential in a democratic society. They remind us that technological innovation never relieves us of moral responsibility. Innovation alone can never be the measure of what is right.

At the same time, criticism itself should reflect the same intellectual integrity that we expect from scientific inquiry. There is a fundamental difference between an allegation and a demonstrated violation. Respecting that distinction is not the same as defending a company. It is a defence of the principles upon which the rule of law rests.

This brings us to the concept of trust.

Trust is never the same as blind belief. We trust physicians without assuming they are infallible. We trust scientific research without believing that every finding is final. We trust the courts without expecting every judgment to be perfect. Trust always involves a willingness to act under conditions of uncertainty while preserving the possibility of criticism and correction.

The same should apply to artificial intelligence.

Using AI neither means surrendering our thinking to the machine nor rejecting the technology as a matter of principle. It means approaching it with what Aristotle called phronesis—practical wisdom. Practical wisdom does not seek absolute certainty but the best possible action in a particular situation. It requires experience, reflection, and ethical judgment.

For individual users, this means reading critically, verifying sources, and remaining willing to correct both the technology's mistakes and one's own. For AI companies, it means developing systems that are transparent about their limitations, committed to safety, and open to scrutiny. For governments, it means creating legal frameworks that both protect human dignity and allow innovation to flourish.

None of these responsibilities can be fulfilled in isolation.

The greatest danger therefore lies neither in the technology itself nor in the lawsuits surrounding it. It lies in our tendency to think in simplistic oppositions: complete trust or complete distrust, technological optimism or technological pessimism. Practical philosophy points toward a third path. It invites us to preserve dialogue, pursue truth through critical reflection, and allow judgments to be made only after the evidence has been carefully considered.

Artificial intelligence challenges far more than our technical competence. It challenges our character. It asks whether we are still willing to think for ourselves, even when machines are capable of thinking alongside us.

Perhaps that is the greatest test of practical wisdom in our own time.