<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The Robot Arbitrator Can&#8217;t Issue Confirmable Awards	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2025/12/13/the-robot-arbitrator-cant-issue-confirmable-awards/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2025/12/13/the-robot-arbitrator-cant-issue-confirmable-awards/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 16:04:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted Folkman		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2025/12/13/the-robot-arbitrator-cant-issue-confirmable-awards/#comment-51615</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Folkman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 16:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=38649#comment-51615</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://mstdn.plus/@oxpsi/115729162883145101&quot;&gt;0xPsi&lt;/a&gt;.

@oxpsi I do like using the Court&#039;s approach to statutory interpretation in this way!

I&#039;m not sure that a &quot;human-in-the-loop&quot; AI arbitration system is a bad thing for document-intensive cases that fall into repeatable patterns (except in the case of consumer arbitration, where I think it is a bad thing for other reasons).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://mstdn.plus/@oxpsi/115729162883145101">0xPsi</a>.</p>
<p>@oxpsi I do like using the Court&#8217;s approach to statutory interpretation in this way!</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure that a &#8220;human-in-the-loop&#8221; AI arbitration system is a bad thing for document-intensive cases that fall into repeatable patterns (except in the case of consumer arbitration, where I think it is a bad thing for other reasons).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: 0xPsi		</title>
		<link>https://mstdn.plus/@oxpsi/115729162883145101</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[0xPsi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 12:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=38649#comment-51597</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;love how you turn the court’s own frozen-in-1925 textualism against robot arbitrators. even if congress doesn’t move, i worry providers will just slap a nominal human signer on an ai‑drafted award and claim that satisfies the faa’s “arbitrator” requirement.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>love how you turn the court’s own frozen-in-1925 textualism against robot arbitrators. even if congress doesn’t move, i worry providers will just slap a nominal human signer on an ai‑drafted award and claim that satisfies the faa’s “arbitrator” requirement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
