4 ms·

I still think a lot more research needs to go into it. Specifically in the field of computer ethics, and general AI. (I don't want judges interpreting the law,

by Retra 11y ago

I still think a lot more research needs to go into it. Specifically in the field of computer ethics, and general AI. (I don't want judges interpreting the law, I want safe machines doing it.)

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
There goes common law, jury nullification and case precedent out of the window. Everything is now a literal legalist reading. I absolutely despise the meme that's so popular here saying that the law is like code and should be totally automated. It's not. It's very fuzzy and that's a huge benefit.
- Retra 11y ago
  You're assuming all these things like they are necessary or something? I want computers that don't have those exact problems. That's why it needs more research. So we don't have literal legal readings. We could have machines that understand context and manage it in a transparent and verifiable manner.
  - bitJericho 11y ago
    Judges already do this and they do it quite well. Have you ever read a court case? They even do it within the social concerns of the time. Look at gay marriage. The major problems with the courts are mandatory sentencing, plea bargains, over the top laws (like some drug laws) and access for the poor. None of these bar the last one would really benefit with technology.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      They don't do it particularly well, unless you think "time since lunch at time of parole hearing" is a strong predictor of criminal recidivism. http://www.economist.com/node/18557594 http://www.economist.com/node/18557594
    - aianus 11y ago
      Judges and juries don't understand logic, science, or technology and instead rely solely on show-and-tell presentations from paid 'experts'[1]. It scares the shit out of me that my life would ever be in the hands of a bunch of glorified arts students in conjunction with random members of the population. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
      - bitJericho 11y ago
        I guess I can't speak for the British system. And yeah im sure we can cite horrendous abuse and lapses of judgements all day. In general, I'm saying that judges write out their opinions and their reasoning in the open, very clearly, in the US.
        Retra 11y ago
        There's a difference between writing down a justification for actions you've already taken and having your entire internal thought process open to public review.
        bitJericho 11y ago
        I don't know what you're talking about. When a judge writes his or her findings of fact, it details his justifications for his determinations. If you want his internal thought processes, I don't think a machine can help you there. A machine can't think. It can only decide a flowchart set of rules, something that won't work in a criminal court setting. You can't go lenient on someone who deserves it, or hard one someone who doesn't, which is the whole role of "justice". This is a justice system we have in the US, not a vengeance system.
        Retra 11y ago
        Well, I'm certainly not going to take you at your word for any of this.
  - lotu 11y ago
    Look I want strong AI too. But I'm unsure that this is going to a viable avenue to producing one. Furthermore, I'm not even sure the a strong AI will necessarily be incorruptible, I even less confident about those people that build and certify it to be so.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Well they're definitely not going to be incorruptible if you don't pay anyone to do the research necessary to make them that way. There is a huge market for corruptible AI. The way we are doing it now is no worse than completely unregulated voting machines. I am only suggesting that there is a different approach.
dragontamer 11y ago
Then Congress will be writing code. Not just code, but unbreakable, uninterpreted code. Do you think Congress will get it right 100% of the time? The Judicial branch and Executive branch benefit from the "fuzziness". If Congress fails to move, the President can make a move without them. If Congress is ever unclear, then the Judicial Branch gains a touch of power as they make a landmark ruling. In fact, the _huge_ size of laws today are attempts at making Congress's intent more clear. 3000+ Pages of "Affordable Care Act" and yet the intent remained unclear (tax vs penalty? Tax Deductions to marketplaces run by "the state". Does "the state" mean the government in general? Or does it mean "state" as in Florida?) The famous "Tomato is a Fruit or Vegetable??" case "Nix v. Hedden" is all you need to know about Congress's inability to write clear laws... no matter how hard they try. This country has a knack of finding corner cases to the law making them horribly important in laughable ways. In any case, "code that is law" sounds like a horrible idea. Congress barely reads laws as it is, and instead outsources the job to "the expert" lobbyists. Part of the problem is that expert Congressmen / Congresswomen learn that they can make more money by working for private business lobbying firms than staying in Congress. So they leave Congress (and leave all the political crap behind)... and write laws and legal arguments for businesses. ---------- And even then, Congress gets a lot of things wrong when they are 100% clear anyway. Most judges don't like sentencing minor Marijuana smokers to jail... but when Congress writes "Minimum Sentencing Laws", guess what? The Judge is _forced_ to do so, even if the individual judge disagrees with the law. In this case where Congress is so wrong with law, it is more beneficial to leave more power to the judge and jury. Even if you do think that Marijuana is evil and horrible, most people agree that sending someone to jail over it is a mistake. (where the jailed man will only get access to more drugs and contacts). Send drug users to the hospital, send them to get cured. Don't send them to jail where it will only get worse.
- Retra 11y ago
  Congress would not be the first place I'd implement such a thing. I'd start with automated forum moderators and then maybe move on from there once they prove themselves better than humans. Maybe a small civil court handling parking tickets. Let's not assume too much, here.
  - 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mc32 11y ago
I don't think I would want that. It sounds clinically nice, but I'm not sure we'd want that in practice --just imagine a Robocop force. A change like this would likely be similar to the changes brought about when judicial discretion was ejected in favor of strict sentencing.
tomp 11y ago
Computers making moral choices? No, thank you.

by Retra 11y ago

I still think a lot more research needs to go into it. Specifically in the field of computer ethics, and general AI. (I don't want judges interpreting the law, I want safe machines doing it.)

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

There goes common law, jury nullification and case precedent out of the window. Everything is now a literal legalist reading. I absolutely despise the meme that's so popular here saying that the law is like code and should be totally automated. It's not. It's very fuzzy and that's a huge benefit.

Retra 11y ago
You're assuming all these things like they are necessary or something? I want computers that don't have those exact problems. That's why it needs more research. So we don't have literal legal readings. We could have machines that understand context and manage it in a transparent and verifiable manner.
- bitJericho 11y ago
  Judges already do this and they do it quite well. Have you ever read a court case? They even do it within the social concerns of the time. Look at gay marriage. The major problems with the courts are mandatory sentencing, plea bargains, over the top laws (like some drug laws) and access for the poor. None of these bar the last one would really benefit with technology.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    They don't do it particularly well, unless you think "time since lunch at time of parole hearing" is a strong predictor of criminal recidivism. http://www.economist.com/node/18557594 http://www.economist.com/node/18557594
  - aianus 11y ago
    Judges and juries don't understand logic, science, or technology and instead rely solely on show-and-tell presentations from paid 'experts'[1]. It scares the shit out of me that my life would ever be in the hands of a bunch of glorified arts students in conjunction with random members of the population. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
    - bitJericho 11y ago
      I guess I can't speak for the British system. And yeah im sure we can cite horrendous abuse and lapses of judgements all day. In general, I'm saying that judges write out their opinions and their reasoning in the open, very clearly, in the US.
      - Retra 11y ago
        There's a difference between writing down a justification for actions you've already taken and having your entire internal thought process open to public review.
        bitJericho 11y ago
        I don't know what you're talking about. When a judge writes his or her findings of fact, it details his justifications for his determinations. If you want his internal thought processes, I don't think a machine can help you there. A machine can't think. It can only decide a flowchart set of rules, something that won't work in a criminal court setting. You can't go lenient on someone who deserves it, or hard one someone who doesn't, which is the whole role of "justice". This is a justice system we have in the US, not a vengeance system.
        Retra 11y ago
        Well, I'm certainly not going to take you at your word for any of this.
- lotu 11y ago
  Look I want strong AI too. But I'm unsure that this is going to a viable avenue to producing one. Furthermore, I'm not even sure the a strong AI will necessarily be incorruptible, I even less confident about those people that build and certify it to be so.
  - Retra 11y ago
    Well they're definitely not going to be incorruptible if you don't pay anyone to do the research necessary to make them that way. There is a huge market for corruptible AI. The way we are doing it now is no worse than completely unregulated voting machines. I am only suggesting that there is a different approach.

dragontamer 11y ago

Then Congress will be writing code. Not just code, but unbreakable, uninterpreted code. Do you think Congress will get it right 100% of the time? The Judicial branch and Executive branch benefit from the "fuzziness". If Congress fails to move, the President can make a move without them. If Congress is ever unclear, then the Judicial Branch gains a touch of power as they make a landmark ruling. In fact, the _huge_ size of laws today are attempts at making Congress's intent more clear. 3000+ Pages of "Affordable Care Act" and yet the intent remained unclear (tax vs penalty? Tax Deductions to marketplaces run by "the state". Does "the state" mean the government in general? Or does it mean "state" as in Florida?) The famous "Tomato is a Fruit or Vegetable??" case "Nix v. Hedden" is all you need to know about Congress's inability to write clear laws... no matter how hard they try. This country has a knack of finding corner cases to the law making them horribly important in laughable ways. In any case, "code that is law" sounds like a horrible idea. Congress barely reads laws as it is, and instead outsources the job to "the expert" lobbyists. Part of the problem is that expert Congressmen / Congresswomen learn that they can make more money by working for private business lobbying firms than staying in Congress. So they leave Congress (and leave all the political crap behind)... and write laws and legal arguments for businesses. ---------- And even then, Congress gets a lot of things wrong when they are 100% clear anyway. Most judges don't like sentencing minor Marijuana smokers to jail... but when Congress writes "Minimum Sentencing Laws", guess what? The Judge is _forced_ to do so, even if the individual judge disagrees with the law. In this case where Congress is so wrong with law, it is more beneficial to leave more power to the judge and jury. Even if you do think that Marijuana is evil and horrible, most people agree that sending someone to jail over it is a mistake. (where the jailed man will only get access to more drugs and contacts). Send drug users to the hospital, send them to get cured. Don't send them to jail where it will only get worse.

Retra 11y ago
Congress would not be the first place I'd implement such a thing. I'd start with automated forum moderators and then maybe move on from there once they prove themselves better than humans. Maybe a small civil court handling parking tickets. Let's not assume too much, here.
- 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mc32 11y ago

I don't think I would want that. It sounds clinically nice, but I'm not sure we'd want that in practice --just imagine a Robocop force. A change like this would likely be similar to the changes brought about when judicial discretion was ejected in favor of strict sentencing.

tomp 11y ago

Computers making moral choices? No, thank you.