Philosophy - Revision history

Nicolas: Rewrite: less paper verbatim, add legal privilege, aspirational tone, international scope, not France-centric (via update-page on MediaWiki MCP Server)

2026-04-23T01:41:45Z

Rewrite: less paper verbatim, add legal privilege, aspirational tone, international scope, not France-centric (via update-page on MediaWiki MCP Server)

Show changes

Nicolas: Enrich with paper content: justice gap, hallucination rates, TA Grenoble, 80+ MCP analysis, credibility by audit, legal boundary (via update-page on MediaWiki MCP Server)

2026-04-23T01:32:43Z

Enrich with paper content: justice gap, hallucination rates, TA Grenoble, 80+ MCP analysis, credibility by audit, legal boundary (via update-page on MediaWiki MCP Server)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The founding argument of Dura Lex.
-== The reality ==
+== The access to justice gap ==
 Citizens and lawyers increasingly use AI to handle legal questions — drafting contracts, researching case law, understanding their rights, preparing arguments. This trend will not reverse. AI is becoming a primary interface to the law.
-The question is not whether people will use AI for law. They already do. The question is whether they will do it safely.
+The question is not whether people will use AI for law. They already do. The question is whether they will do it '''safely'''.
 Current legal AI tools are black boxes. The data they rely on is opaque. Their reasoning is not auditable. Their confidentiality commitments are neither provable nor verifiable.
@@ Line 19: / Line 36: @@
 The French National Bar Council (CNB) states that sharing client data with external AI systems may breach professional secrecy obligations (''secret professionnel''). No current commercial legal AI offers full auditability of its data sources, processing pipeline, or reasoning chain.
-The risk is not theoretical. Disciplinary sanctions, civil liability, and criminal exposure under articles 226-13 and 226-14 of the French Penal Code.
+The risk is not theoretical. The Administrative Court of Grenoble rendered in December 2025 the first French decisions sanctioning AI-generated legal filings, described as "anything but legally framed". Eight decisions followed in weeks, including the first targeting a lawyer (TJ Périgueux, December 2025). The CNB adopted its deontological guide on generative AI in direct response.
 <blockquote>
-'''References:''' CNB, ''Guide de la déontologie et de l'intelligence artificielle'', March 2026. CNB, ''Guide pratique d'utilisation des systèmes d'IAG'', September 2024. CNB, ''Grille de lecture — Intelligence artificielle'', June 2025.
+'''References:''' CNB, ''Guide de la déontologie et de l'intelligence artificielle'', March 2026. CNB, ''Guide pratique d'utilisation des systèmes d'IAG'', September 2024. CNB, ''Grille de lecture — Intelligence artificielle'', June 2025. TA Grenoble, 3 December 2025, n°2510860. TJ Périgueux, 18 December 2025, n°23/00452.
 </blockquote>
@@ Line 61: / Line 80: @@
 This is the OpenStreetMap model: permissive code, copyleft data. The ecosystem grows because everyone can build on it. The data stays open because no one can close it.
 === Auditability ===
@@ Line 71: / Line 98: @@
 * Safety '''guidelines''' are loaded before every research session
 * The AI can run a '''quality check''' against the corpus after answering
 === Doubt is always expressed ===
@@ Line 79: / Line 108: @@
 When every step is inspectable, every limitation is stated, and every source is cited — that is a digital common.

Nicolas: Philosophy page — founding argument, CNB position, 4 pillars, digital commons (via create-page on MediaWiki MCP Server)

2026-04-23T01:30:41Z

Philosophy page — founding argument, CNB position, 4 pillars, digital commons (via create-page on MediaWiki MCP Server)

New page

The founding argument of Dura Lex.

== The reality ==

Citizens and lawyers increasingly use AI to handle legal questions — drafting contracts, researching case law, understanding their rights, preparing arguments. This trend will not reverse. AI is becoming a primary interface to the law.

The question is not whether people will use AI for law. They already do. The question is whether they will do it safely.

== The problem ==

Current legal AI tools are black boxes. The data they rely on is opaque. Their reasoning is not auditable. Their confidentiality commitments are neither provable nor verifiable.

<blockquote>
''« Les engagements de confidentialité des fournisseurs de solutions d'IA sont ni prouvables ni vérifiables. »''

— CNB, ''Guide de la déontologie et de l'intelligence artificielle'', adopted March 13, 2026
</blockquote>

The French National Bar Council (CNB) states that sharing client data with external AI systems may breach professional secrecy obligations (''secret professionnel''). No current commercial legal AI offers full auditability of its data sources, processing pipeline, or reasoning chain.

The risk is not theoretical. Disciplinary sanctions, civil liability, and criminal exposure under articles 226-13 and 226-14 of the French Penal Code.

<blockquote>
'''References:''' CNB, ''Guide de la déontologie et de l'intelligence artificielle'', March 2026. CNB, ''Guide pratique d'utilisation des systèmes d'IAG'', September 2024. CNB, ''Grille de lecture — Intelligence artificielle'', June 2025.
</blockquote>

== The mission ==

Dura Lex does not aim to prevent AI usage in law — it aims to make it '''safe'''.

Four pillars:

; Safety
: Strict guidelines, quality checks, content quality levels on every document. The system never hides uncertainty — it expresses it. Every document carries its reliability level. Every gap in coverage is flagged. A <code>quality_check</code> tool lets the AI self-audit its own response against the corpus.

; Transparency
: Everything is traceable and auditable. Every document has a provenance. Every enrichment is tagged with its method and confidence level. Every reasoning path can be verified against the source. <code>content_quality</code> shows document reliability. <code>needs_review</code> flags anomalies. <code>translation_quality</code> distinguishes official from machine translations.

; Sovereignty
: The entire stack can run on-premise, on sovereign European infrastructure, or fully air-gapped. No dependency on foreign cloud providers. No data leaves without explicit choice. The law comes to your data — not your data to someone else's cloud.

; Professional secrecy
: Conversations, queries, and research stay under the user's control. Multiple privacy modes from standard to air-gapped. Designed for the requirements of ''secret professionnel'' as defined by the CNB.

== The answer: digital commons ==

Dura Lex is the opposite of a black box.

=== Open source, open data ===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Component !! License !! Rationale
|-
| Software (all packages) || '''MIT''' || Maximum adoption — anyone can use, fork, embed, commercialize without restriction
|-
| Enriched data (corpus, edges, annotations) || '''ODbL''' || Share-alike for data — improvements flow back to the commons
|-
| Raw source data || Per-source (Licence Ouverte 2.0, CC0) || Government open data — already public
|}

This is the OpenStreetMap model: permissive code, copyleft data. The ecosystem grows because everyone can build on it. The data stays open because no one can close it.

=== Auditability ===

Every link in the chain is visible and verifiable:

* Every document carries its '''content quality''' level — from raw OCR to jurist-reviewed
* Every edge (cross-reference, amendment, citation) carries its '''provenance'''
* Every translation is tagged with its '''method''' — official, machine, human-reviewed
* Safety '''guidelines''' are loaded before every research session
* The AI can run a '''quality check''' against the corpus after answering

=== Doubt is always expressed ===

The system never pretends to certainty it does not have. Missing data, low-quality OCR, incomplete temporal coverage, untested jurisdictions — all are surfaced, never hidden.

When a tool tells you "here is the answer" without showing you where it looked, what it found, and what it might have missed — that is a black box.

When every step is inspectable, every limitation is stated, and every source is cited — that is a digital common.