In the third issue of modern law in 2021, Feng Jie wrote that the era of big data will not only bring technical and institutional doctrinal challenges to judicial adjudication, but also bring potential dangers at the level of judicial thinking. In essence, judicial adjudication is a normative demonstration and reasoning activity aiming at the pursuit of correctness. It adheres to reason thinking, correctness thinking and normative thinking. The core of big data technology is to predict the future judgment through calculation (algorithm) based on the historical data of judicial acts. It may bring three dangers: first, digital solutionism, that is, replacing argument and reasoning with data calculation; Second, judicial positivism, that is, to replace correct judgment with unified judgment; The third is legal pragmatism, that is, to replace rule practice with result prediction. However, as long as the moral subject status and autonomy of people (judges) are still the value foundation of judicial judgment, the above dangers do not pose a fundamental challenge. But it does bring a reverse challenge, that is, how to make people (judges) think more like people than machines when the "algorithm society" comes.