2 ms·

It's impossible to design an appropriate algorithm ahead of time capable of accepting all of the possible inputs that might occur. Which isn't to say that we s

by harryh 11y ago

It's impossible to design an appropriate algorithm ahead of time capable of accepting all of the possible inputs that might occur. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't do our best. We shouldn't just throw up our hands. But I think it's important to admit that judges will always be necessary to handle inevitable ambiguities.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
It's completely possible to design an algorithm that will give a deterministic result in every case. It might not always be the result you want, but a judge might not give the result you want either. And at least with the algorithm the result is predictable (even if not predicted) and, if wrong, can be fixed and then apply consistently in the future without making decisions based on politics or race or personal relationships. Or to put it another way, we could have an algorithm make the decision but then have a judge whose job it is to find when the algorithm is wrong and then fix it for future but not past/current cases.
- harryh 11y ago
  Yes. That's why I said "appropriate algorithm" and not just "algorithm." There is a tradeoff between predictability and correctness. Where you come in on that tradeoff is pretty different from most other people.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > There is a tradeoff between predictability and correctness. Where you come in on that tradeoff is pretty different from most other people. Because I don't see it as a tradeoff between predictability and correctness, I see it as a tradeoff between correctness for past acts and correctness forever in the future. If you know a law is ridiculous but you also know that a judge will see the same thing and then not let you do that, you won't do it. Some people like that result. The problem is it causes the ridiculous law to carry on existing and not be fixed, because nobody is willing to challenge it when they know they'll lose and go to jail even though by the letter they shouldn't. So then nobody ever knows what the law actually is because it clearly isn't what it says it is, but if it isn't that then what is it?

by harryh 11y ago

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

It's completely possible to design an algorithm that will give a deterministic result in every case. It might not always be the result you want, but a judge might not give the result you want either. And at least with the algorithm the result is predictable (even if not predicted) and, if wrong, can be fixed and then apply consistently in the future without making decisions based on politics or race or personal relationships. Or to put it another way, we could have an algorithm make the decision but then have a judge whose job it is to find when the algorithm is wrong and then fix it for future but not past/current cases.

harryh 11y ago
Yes. That's why I said "appropriate algorithm" and not just "algorithm." There is a tradeoff between predictability and correctness. Where you come in on that tradeoff is pretty different from most other people.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > There is a tradeoff between predictability and correctness. Where you come in on that tradeoff is pretty different from most other people. Because I don't see it as a tradeoff between predictability and correctness, I see it as a tradeoff between correctness for past acts and correctness forever in the future. If you know a law is ridiculous but you also know that a judge will see the same thing and then not let you do that, you won't do it. Some people like that result. The problem is it causes the ridiculous law to carry on existing and not be fixed, because nobody is willing to challenge it when they know they'll lose and go to jail even though by the letter they shouldn't. So then nobody ever knows what the law actually is because it clearly isn't what it says it is, but if it isn't that then what is it?