4 ms·
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 tha
by 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 agoYou'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 agoJudges 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 agoThey 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 agoJudges 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 agoI 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 agoThere'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 agoI 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 agoWell, I'm certainly not going to take you at your word for any of this.
- lotu 11y agoLook 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 agoWell 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.