4 ms·
>if we had a 100% sure way of detecting that someone's going to commit a crime, should we use it If it was 100% correct, it seems morally justifiable to use it
by halomru 10y ago
>if we had a 100% sure way of detecting that someone's going to commit a crime, should we use it
If it was 100% correct, it seems morally justifiable to use it, as long as you are a dictatorship. For a democracy, you would need not only correctness, but independently verifiable correctness. If the algorithm is 100% correct today but can be influenced tomorrow, you are giving absolute power over the state to whoever can influence the algorithm. After all, it's impossible to proof your innocence if you are convicted before the crime.
Basically, after solving the technical problems with creating the algorithm, you also need a system of checks and balances that can replace the public verifiability of our current court system.
- oh_sigh 10y agoIf it was 100%, all you would need to do was intervene in some manner where that likelihood dropped to 0%. For example, if the system can predict you will beat your spouse, then force the future-perp to come outside 10 minutes before and modify the scenario to the point where they wouldn't beat their spouse. With minority-report scenarios, it's not like you actually need to punish people as if they really did commit the crime, even though the crime is in the future. All you need to do is prevent it.