> An algorithm isn't always better, but when it produces unwanted results, we can criticize it, think about why it went wrong, improve it. When a judge makes mi

> An algorithm isn't always better, but when it produces unwanted results, we can criticize it, think about why it went wrong, improve it. When a judge makes mistakes, there's not any easy way to improve him. I believe that now that there is much fuzz about AI you can improve lots of things. I would like to see in 200 years if you can - no, you can't, why? For the same reason you hardly can change things now: "the algorithm has been studied, improved, tested over and over" -> this is the law. But who says it's correct or fair? A judge, exactly because he is a human, can improve. How? For example, with a feedback system or by requiring explanations for his judgement (based on facts, not moods) - if he doesn't do so, he shall be accountable for his actions. I am not too much into law or politics, but things are that way since always and hardly have changed. But we know how things will go. Algorithms/machines will slowly replace everything, because they lower the costs with the promise that things will be more dynamic and that life will improve - however, the usual gang of people will manage to be "more equal" than others, also when the algorithm works perfectly. > The attraction of an algorithm is that you can control strictly what information goes in [...] How is this attractive? Information can be easily manipulated, delayed, withheld. Essentially, you are just shifting the accountability - from the judge to the guy who feeds the algorithm. And by the way, we are talking about judges who don't apply the law appropriately. Let's talk about those judges who applying the law put their lives at risk - or simply get killed. Shall we? Can we at least trust those judges?