Nilay Patel

You said that several years from now, 10, 20, 30 years from now, we would think it was crazy that we ever had human judges making as many decisions as we do today.

You've got one case in the system.

Is that borne out?

Do you feel that as strongly as you did when we first talked a few months ago?

One thing I've been thinking about throughout this conversation is like who gets access to these systems?

Who gets to make it feel fair?

Where does the trust in the agency come from?

A pervasive criticism of arbitration broadly is, well, it's a service, right?

It's fee for service even though the AAA is a nonprofit.

There are other –

I would say more rapacious providers of arbitration services that do run them as for-profit businesses.

You have clients.

The clients have to be happy with the outcomes.

And that does feel like it changes how people perceive the whole process.

As you automate that, right, and you have big clients who are paying for lots and lots of arbitration, and they can see that the automated system is either helping them or hurting them, should that affect how people think about the fairness of the system overall?

These are fundamentally your clients, and you're building a tool for them.

Yeah, but let me just contrast that to your previous role in the state courts as the Chief Justice in Michigan.

The Michigan Supreme Courts belong to everybody in Michigan.

No matter who the parties are, they're yours.

You're paying taxes.