Aydın Tiryaki (2026)

We are living in an era where the legal system has become increasingly complex, case burdens have surged, and human intelligence struggles to manage thousands of variables simultaneously. At the point technology has reached today, integrating artificial intelligence into the judicial system is not merely a preference, but a necessity for the establishment of justice. However, this integration does not mean delegating responsibility to a machine; rather, it means placing the processing power of the machine at the command of human conscience.

There is an “Etiquette” and “Justice” to Using AI

The use of AI cannot be an excuse to escape conscientious responsibility by citing workload. In sensitive matters touching human life, such as the judiciary, there is a proper etiquette to using AI as an “assistant.” One must use the system with enough mastery to audit even their own writing.

Human intelligence may struggle to solve complex relationships and massive data sets (matrices) beyond a certain point. It is precisely here that bringing AI into play is necessary for a “fair” outcome. AI solves the complex web of relationships that humans cannot, but the responsibility to “interpret” the result and make the final decision remains with the human.

The Closed-Loop System and the “NotebookLM” Model

The AI to be used in the judiciary must not be open to the information pollution of the internet. This system must be designed as a “closed system” fed by the Constitution, laws, regulations, and their justifications.

We can explain this with a concrete example using today’s “NotebookLM” technology. Just as NotebookLM operates only on the documents uploaded to it and does not produce “hallucinations” (fabricated information) because it does not pull data from the outside, the legal system we propose will operate on the same logic. All legislative data in the system will be uploaded under state control, updates will be processed instantly, and the AI will only use this verified pool of resources. Thus, the possibility of the system erring or “hallucinating” will be eliminated.

Flawless Historical Memory and Time Management

One of the most critical features of this system is its complete command over the historical journey of laws. From the moment a law is enacted to the slightest amendment it undergoes, everything will be recorded in the system.

The system will know completely “which article was valid between which dates” and “on which date it entered into force or was repealed.” When a case arises, the AI will go to the date the event occurred and present us with the legislation in force at that moment (in its original state, without deviation). Historical transitions that human memory might confuse will be managed flawlessly in this system.

Hierarchy of Norms and Legislative Cleanup

In the current system, there are instances where regulations conflict with laws, or laws conflict with the Constitution. In the system I propose, AI can scan all legislation and detect points within seconds where lower norms conflict with higher norms. In this way, “legal debris” in the system is cleared, and the legislative body is warned without making errors.

Citizen-Oriented Data Entry and Legal Liability

The success of the system depends on the accuracy and speed of data entry. An interface running via e-Government (e-Devlet), where the citizen enters their own data personally, will eliminate bureaucracy and intermediaries.

However, there is a critical balance here: This convenience provided to the citizen must bring with it serious responsibility. The correct operation of the system depends on correct data. If a citizen consciously enters erroneous or false information into the system to mislead the judiciary, there must be serious sanctions for this before the law. The system must be sensitive enough to detect data inconsistencies and must not allow “intentional deception” attempts.

Resistance of the Status Quo and New Business Areas

Of course, such a radical change will bring with it the resistance of those who benefit from the current order. throughout history, every technological revolution has created its own opponents. Today, some elements within the legal system that feed off clumsiness or confusion will be uncomfortable with this transparency and the ability of citizens to handle their own affairs.

The ability of citizens with developed IT and legal literacy to enter data into the system without needing an intermediary may be perceived as a threat to traditional legal practice. However, resistance to these technological developments should not deter us. Because this system will not destroy lawyers; it will transform them.

For citizens whose digital or legal literacy is insufficient, there will always be a need for professionals to use this system “firsthand” and most efficiently. A brand new field of business will emerge for jurists under the names of “System Expertise” and “Strategic Consultancy.” While the system makes everyone’s job easier, expertise will change form and retain its value.

Closing Backdoors

When the system operates with transparency, time-stamping, and mathematical precision, the path of those who wish to conduct “backdoor diplomacy” is cut off. Since every stage of the transactions is recorded, those who want to slow down or manipulate the process are instantly detected by the system. Although this transparency may not please some, it is essential for the establishment of justice.

Catalog Cases and “Clearing the Slate”

Millions of “catalog cases” (cases with standardized outcomes) that clog the legal system can be analyzed and concluded by AI within seconds. Files related to minor procedural errors or simple crimes, in particular, can be rapidly “cleared from the slate.” This will throw off the dead weight on the judiciary and allow human judges to focus only on complex cases requiring depth.

Conclusion: Predictability and Trust

If the data is clear, the laws are clear, and the analysis method is clear, the result becomes “predictable.” When a citizen files a lawsuit, they will largely know what the outcome will be.

Of course, the Judge will still say the final word. However, AI will present an “objective reference decision” based on laws and data. If the Judge deviates from this reference decision, they will have to explain the justification for this very robustly. This will end arbitrariness and bring about an objective and auditable justice.

---

A Note on Methods and Tools: All observations, ideas, and solution proposals in this study are the author’s own. AI was utilized as an information source for researching and compiling relevant topics strictly based on the author’s inquiries, requests, and directions; additionally, it provided writing assistance during the drafting process. (The research-based compilation and English writing process of this text were supported by AI as a specialized assistant.)