It is clear that the use of ADS in government practice in democratic countries brings many opposing opinions. It can be simply explained that the role of civil society, which has the obligation and right to determine its own fate and participate in policymaking, will be replaced by machines. A legal expert, for example, calls ADS a "toxic cocktail for democracy" – poison for democracy. Of course, as a law graduate equipped with critical thinking skills, we must not immediately reject a concept that has the potential to bring about major changes, even if it can fundamentally change our way of life and views.

ADS is nothing more than a tool; from an ethical perspective, responsibility for the use of the tool remains with the party that uses it. This means that maximizing democratic practice by using ADS is, in theory, very possible. Restrictions on what issues can be raised, control measures, and a thorough evaluation of the "work results" of AI are ways that can be used so that ADS does not become a threat to democracy. Determining boundaries, preparing a strong legal foundation, and a strong political of care perspective are things that can be prepared in implementing ADS in transparent and accountable government practice.

*This article is the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the views of the editorial team Legal Literacy Indonesia.