The criticism of artificial intelligence in making decisions in lieu of human judgement often pits the process against an impossible ideal that doesn't exist an

The criticism of artificial intelligence in making decisions in lieu of human judgement often pits the process against an impossible ideal that doesn't exist and likely could not exist. For instance, some research suggests that judges are a lot less likely to grant parole before lunch. The theory is that no parole would be the default no-brainer decision a judge can make, which makes sense. [0] The fact is that many decisions are made by humans with, at best slight personal bias and at worst malice. With a systematic AI approach you can be somewhat confident that the decisions made are based on a wide range of experience, optimizing for an agreed upon objective (e.g. likelihood of reoffense). It's not perfect but it's better and can improve a lot easier without the need to villainize individuals [0] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/11/justice-is-served-but-more-so-after-lunch-how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/1...