Recent discussions have sparked interest in the possibility of using artificial intelligence to replace juries in legal systems. While AI has made significant advances in areas such as data analysis and decision-making, its application in legal contexts remains a topic of debate among legal experts and ethicists. Some argue that AI could offer more objective and efficient rulings, while others express concerns about the complexity of human judgment and the ethical implications of removing human oversight from legal processes. In a related but distinct development, there has been speculation about whether mathematicians might be required to perform multiplication manually in certain academic or professional contexts. This idea stems from discussions about the role of technology in education and the potential impact of over-reliance on calculators or digital tools. However, experts suggest that such requirements would be rare and likely limited to specific pedagogical goals rather than a widespread practice. The potential integration of AI into legal systems raises broader questions about the balance between technological advancement and the preservation of human elements in justice. Legal professionals are examining how AI can be used to assist rather than replace human judgment, ensuring that the nuances of law and morality are not overlooked. These discussions are ongoing and involve input from technologists, legal scholars, and policymakers. Meanwhile, the debate about manual multiplication highlights the evolving relationship between education and technology. While digital tools have made complex calculations more accessible, some educators believe that understanding fundamental mathematical operations is crucial for developing critical thinking skills. This perspective underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between technological reliance and foundational knowledge in various fields.