Talk:Legal singularity
Add topic| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Edit request: attribution, thesis characterization, and reception
[edit]| The user below has a request that an edit be made to Legal singularity. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 611 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. |
I am Benjamin Alarie. I have a conflict of interest with this article: I coined the term in the 2016 article already cited as a reference, and I am co-author of the 2023 book also cited. Per WP:COI I am not editing the article directly and instead propose the following three changes for independent review. All proposed sources are either already cited in the article or are independent of me.
1. Attribute the origin of the term in the lead. The article cites Alarie (2016) but the prose does not state where the term originated. Proposed addition at the end of the first paragraph: :The term was coined by Benjamin Alarie in a 2016 article in the University of Toronto Law Journal. Source: the Alarie (2016) reference already in the article. Independent secondary confirmation: Weber (2021), already cited, which discusses the term as originating with Alarie, and Markou & Deakin (2020), already cited.
2. State the proponents' own formulation alongside the critics' characterization. The current second paragraph states that the legal singularity "could potentially lead to a situation where AI systems become the primary legal decision-makers, and humans are relegated to a more supervisory role, if any role at all," sourced to Weber (2021), a critical commentary. This presents a critic's characterization as the definition. For NPOV, I propose adding one sentence stating what the proponents themselves argue, before the critics' view: :Aidid and Alarie describe the legal singularity as a state in which law becomes "functionally complete" and knowable with practical though not perfect certainty, and argue that human accountability for legal judgment is retained rather than displaced. Source: Aidid & Alarie (2023), already cited. This is a descriptive claim about what the cited work argues, per WP:PRIMARY permissible use.
3. Add reception of the 2023 book. Proposed addition: :The Legal Singularity won the 2024 PROSE Award in Legal Studies and Criminology from the Association of American Publishers and was shortlisted for the 2023 Donner Prize. Sources (independent): https://proseawards.com/winners/2024-award-winners/ and https://donnerbookprize.com/2023-shortlist/
I recognize editors may adjust wording; my interest is accuracy of attribution and balanced presentation of the concept alongside the existing critical sources, which I think should remain. Thank you for reviewing. Qwerasdfzcxv (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- Stub-Class AfC articles
- AfC submissions by date/01 August 2023
- Accepted AfC submissions
- Stub-Class law articles
- Unknown-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- Stub-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- Stub-Class Artificial Intelligence articles
- Unknown-importance Artificial Intelligence articles
- WikiProject Artificial Intelligence articles
- Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
