3 ms·
I generally agree with your skepticism of \% as a meaningful metric for AI accuracy or technological prowess. However, do we have any reason to believe that a
by arcanus 10y ago
I generally agree with your skepticism of \% as a meaningful metric for AI accuracy or technological prowess.
However, do we have any reason to believe that a collection of random, qualified judges would be able to predict the outcome of a court verdict with 80% accuracy? I would be surprised if judicial decisions are not stochastic.
Also, we should consider a substitution effect. According to a cursory internet search, 'As of 2012, the pay for federal district judges was $174,000 per year'. If this system is substantially less expensive to purchase and maintain, then there is an argument to be made that it is more efficient, and provides better value, even with a perpetually reduced accuracy.
- notahacker 10y agoI suspect a collection of random, unqualified members of the public could predict the outcome with 100% accuracy using the written judgement as the basis for their evaluation, as appears to be the case in this study...
- tpm 10y agoEven if it was cheaper to purchase and maintain, it wouldn't be more efficient, because money spent is not necessarily the measure of the efficiency of the justice system. That could be, for example, lower criminality. If a system fails to jail enough criminals to do that, even if it's cheap, it's not working. And also, false positives (e.g. jailed innocent people) are especially troubling and can be very expensive in a justice system.
- rayiner 10y agoMost cases are quite routine and easily predictable.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> However, do we have any reason to believe that a collection of random, qualified judges would be able to predict the outcome of a court verdict with 80% accuracy? I think a random selection of second-year law students could probably beat 80% (by about 19 percentage points) predicting the outcome of a court decision from the facts and law sections of the same decision.