The Dark Side of Innovation: When "New" Isn't "Better"

Where I offer a bite-size reflection on digital courts and the limits of innovation

So, this isn’t my usual full-length thought-piece, but more of a bite-size reflection on a topic I thought you might find interesting. I may throw these in from time-to-time during the week, for variety. I hope you like it!

This substack, LawDroid Manifesto, is here to keep you in the loop about the intersection of AI and the law. Please share this article with your friends and colleagues and remember to tell me what you think in the comments below.

---

In the tech world, we worship at the altar of innovation. "Disrupt or be disrupted" isn't just a catchphrase; it's practically scripture. Every startup pitch deck, every corporate vision statement, every TED talk seems to reinforce this gospel: innovation is inherently good, and more innovation is inherently better.

But I've been thinking lately: what if that's not always true?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some neo-Luddite suggesting we abandon progress and return to the stone age. Innovation has given us vaccines, renewable energy, and yes, the internet that allows you to read this newsletter. But our reflexive embrace of the new, particularly in the realm of digital transformation, deserves more scrutiny than it typically receives.

When Digital "Solutions" Create New Problems

Consider what's happening right now in Los Angeles. The LA Superior Court system recently released a survey showing public support for closing many of their aging courthouses in favor of digital kiosks, mobile units, and storefronts. On the surface, this sounds perfectly reasonable, even progressive. Who wouldn't want court services that are more accessible and cost-effective?

The plan includes a new website, informational videos, and the ability to conduct more business online. Court officials cite aging infrastructure and budget constraints as key motivators. Many of the county's courthouses are over 50 years old, with 19 already past their 50-year "usefulness limit." At the current rate of funding for repairs (three courthouses per year), it would take 160 years to fix them all. So instead, they're considering a digital pivot.

But here's where I start to get uncomfortable. When we replace physical spaces with digital interfaces, what exactly are we losing?

The Hidden Costs of Digitization

The LA courts survey reveals that only 40% of respondents rated the court as "transparent and accountable to the public" and believed it provides "equal justice to all." Will digital interfaces solve this trust deficit, or will they exacerbate it?

Justice is not merely a service to be optimized: it's a fundamental social institution. There's something profound about physically entering a courthouse, a space specifically designed to embody the gravity and impartiality of our legal system. When we reduce this to a kiosk at the mall or an app on our phones, we risk trivializing what should remain sacred.

And what about accessibility? While 61% of residents surveyed support the concept of closing courthouses in favor of community-based service centers, we need to ask: accessible for whom? Digital solutions often advantage the young, the tech-literate, those with reliable internet access and devices. What happens to everyone else?

Innovation Without Consideration

This pattern repeats across industries and institutions.

We're so enamored with technological solutions that we implement them before fully understanding their consequences. We build algorithms to make hiring more efficient, only to discover they've amplified existing biases. We create social platforms to connect people, then watch as they become weapons of mass distraction and division. We automate customer service in the name of efficiency, then wonder why consumer satisfaction plummets.

Real innovation:

The problem isn't innovation itself, it's thoughtless innovation. It's innovation that prioritizes novelty over necessity, efficiency over equity, disruption over deliberation.

The Judicial Face in the Digital Box

The image I created above is intended to be a sarcastic jab, of course, but it perfectly encapsulates my concerns: a person standing before what looks like an arcade cabinet labeled "DIGITAL COURT," with a judge's face visible on a screen, gavel in hand. It's meant to represent progress, but to me, it symbolizes something more disturbing: the reduction of justice to a transactional interaction, a gamification of one of society's most serious institutions.

Presiding Judge Sergio Tapia II acknowledges in the article that if courts "want to remain relevant as the third branch of government to safeguard democracy," they need to improve. But is digital transformation the answer to that challenge, or is it simply the path of least resistance, cheaper than fixing crumbling infrastructure, easier than addressing the deeper issues of trust and equity?

A Better Way Forward

I'm not arguing against innovation. But I am advocating for more thoughtful innovation, innovation that starts by asking not just "Can we?" but "Should we?" and "How might this go wrong?" Innovation that recognizes what might be lost, not just what might be gained.

Before we "disrupt" our courts, our schools, our healthcare system, our democracy, let's make sure we're solving real problems rather than creating new ones. Let's ensure our solutions don't exclude the vulnerable or erode our humanity. Rather than create a false choice — either in person courts or digital courts — why not entertain the “and” — in person and digital courts. There’s no need to choose.

Sometimes, the most innovative approach isn't to tear down and rebuild, but to carefully preserve and thoughtfully improve. Sometimes, the best innovation isn't a shiny new replacement, but a more conscientious stewardship of what we already have. Because ultimately, progress isn't measured by how digital we become, but by how humane we remain.

---

This article is inspired by Frances Campbell and the Daily Journal. Here’s a link to the original article, “LA Courts mull court closures to serve public with kiosks, storefronts.”

By the way, did you know you that I now offer a daily AI news update? You get 5 🆕 news items and my take on what it all means, delivered to your inbox, every weekday.

Subscribe to the LawDroid AI Daily News and don’t miss tomorrow’s edition:

LawDroid AI Daily News, is here to keep you up to date on the latest news items and analysis about where AI is going, from a local and global perspective. Please share this edition with your friends and colleagues and remember to tell me what you think in the comments below.

If you’re an existing subscriber, you read the daily news here. I look forward to seeing you on the inside. ;)

Cheers,

Tom Martin
CEO and Founder, LawDroid