4 ms·

People will write that software, select which software to purchase, write the rules for its use, and implement them. Powerful people aren't going to sit back an

People will write that software, select which software to purchase, write the rules for its use, and implement them. Powerful people aren't going to sit back and let those things happen in ways that they don't like, which are threats to them, or which reduce their influence.

Hydraulix989 9y ago
Then we need the software to be implemented as a decentralized smart contract.
- twblalock 9y ago
  How would that help? More specifically, how would implementing this as a smart contract prevent bias from making its way into the algorithms or the learning datasets? Remember that bias can be inserted accidentally, by well-meaning programmers who don't realize that the data they are using is biased or has other methodological problems.
  - Hydraulix989 9y ago
    To me, it just seems like the problem is solvable by having really clean data (Maybe single data point has to be verified by a DNA test? There's plenty of ideas here) -- much more solvable than taking a random group of (probably) unqualified people off the street, calling them a "jury", and then having them make potentially life-or-death decisions regarding the fate of their peers. Right now, the existing system we have is so stacked in favor towards the wealthy and Caucasian that I can't possibly see a well-intentioned algorithm doing any _worse_ than what we have now (a study even successfully correlated good looks with less-strict judicial outcomes; it's pretty easy to design an algorithm that doesn't give an extremely lenient sentence to a Stanford swimmer), but at least, it has a fighting chance of doing _better_. Try reading anything at all about the jury selection process, and you'll be shocked at how abysmal our existing system is. People tend to dismiss machines as being cold, calculated, and emotionless, but that's exactly what we WANT if we're aiming for equal, fair justice for all.
    - twblalock 9y ago
      Clean data is basically impossible to get. You won't find very many experts who agree what it would even mean for data about these topics to be clean. There are tons of methodological disagreements, not to mention the fact that even if we started collecting new "clean" data, the historical data could never be used. The law is a human construct, not a computer program. It is precisely because of issues of bias, fairness, methodology, etc. that the law is complicated and needs to be administered by people who can understand the complexities and use their education and initiative to ensure fair outcomes. It's not perfect, and it never will be. But the legal system was designed with the assumption that judges and lawyers would be able to use discretion. To apply rigid computer logic on top of a system that was intentionally designed to be subject to human discretion would be a disaster.
      - Hydraulix989 9y ago
        I'm a bit more optimistic. For example, for all intents and purposes, I would consider a positive DNA test result to be overwhelmingly damning proof of guilt. Indeed, although unpopular, technological advances in things like data logging and DNA testing are able to establish both guilt and innocence in a much more scientific manner than a judge crippled by such things as their current mood (maybe they had an argument with their spouse before hearing the case and now they're feeling particularly vindictive) and whether they "like" the defendant as a person (maybe the defendant looks like their high school bully). The Innocence Project has successfully exonerated many convicted "criminals" solely on the basis of DNA evidence, some of whom have been behind bars for many years. If that doesn't point to an extremely biased and flawed existing judicial system, I don't know what does. When I think of bias in the judicial system, I don't immediately point the finger at machine learning algorithms and say "if we implemented these types of systems, then we'd be biased" -- instead, I look at peer juries and law enforcement officers as the source of bias, things like "Stop and Frisk" or "driving while black." You have very faulty systems in place like plea bargaining which effectively nullify due process and encourage false confessions in order to obtain a guaranteed lighter sentence. You have prosecutors with their own illicit motives like appearing in public to be "tough on crime" resulting in such atrocities as Aaron Swartz -- this very concept of "making an example out of somebody" is a biased one. Someone brought up the point that "bias can be inserted accidentally, by well-meaning programmers" in an unintentional matter. On the other hand, right now, instead of employing some well-meaning programmer who is trying their very best to make sure things are fair, you have policies in place like racial profiling which are INTENTIONALLY biased. Which is worse? In my mind, ML has the potential of creating a bias-free judicial system more than we could ever hope for by continuing to rely on fickle, highly error-prone, and even outright malicious humans. People just need to get past the fact that a "cold-hearted," emotionless computer is in the judge's chair because that's EXACTLY what we want.

Hydraulix989 9y ago

Then we need the software to be implemented as a decentralized smart contract.

twblalock 9y ago
How would that help? More specifically, how would implementing this as a smart contract prevent bias from making its way into the algorithms or the learning datasets? Remember that bias can be inserted accidentally, by well-meaning programmers who don't realize that the data they are using is biased or has other methodological problems.
- Hydraulix989 9y ago
  To me, it just seems like the problem is solvable by having really clean data (Maybe single data point has to be verified by a DNA test? There's plenty of ideas here) -- much more solvable than taking a random group of (probably) unqualified people off the street, calling them a "jury", and then having them make potentially life-or-death decisions regarding the fate of their peers. Right now, the existing system we have is so stacked in favor towards the wealthy and Caucasian that I can't possibly see a well-intentioned algorithm doing any _worse_ than what we have now (a study even successfully correlated good looks with less-strict judicial outcomes; it's pretty easy to design an algorithm that doesn't give an extremely lenient sentence to a Stanford swimmer), but at least, it has a fighting chance of doing _better_. Try reading anything at all about the jury selection process, and you'll be shocked at how abysmal our existing system is. People tend to dismiss machines as being cold, calculated, and emotionless, but that's exactly what we WANT if we're aiming for equal, fair justice for all.
  - twblalock 9y ago
    Clean data is basically impossible to get. You won't find very many experts who agree what it would even mean for data about these topics to be clean. There are tons of methodological disagreements, not to mention the fact that even if we started collecting new "clean" data, the historical data could never be used. The law is a human construct, not a computer program. It is precisely because of issues of bias, fairness, methodology, etc. that the law is complicated and needs to be administered by people who can understand the complexities and use their education and initiative to ensure fair outcomes. It's not perfect, and it never will be. But the legal system was designed with the assumption that judges and lawyers would be able to use discretion. To apply rigid computer logic on top of a system that was intentionally designed to be subject to human discretion would be a disaster.
    - Hydraulix989 9y ago
      I'm a bit more optimistic. For example, for all intents and purposes, I would consider a positive DNA test result to be overwhelmingly damning proof of guilt. Indeed, although unpopular, technological advances in things like data logging and DNA testing are able to establish both guilt and innocence in a much more scientific manner than a judge crippled by such things as their current mood (maybe they had an argument with their spouse before hearing the case and now they're feeling particularly vindictive) and whether they "like" the defendant as a person (maybe the defendant looks like their high school bully). The Innocence Project has successfully exonerated many convicted "criminals" solely on the basis of DNA evidence, some of whom have been behind bars for many years. If that doesn't point to an extremely biased and flawed existing judicial system, I don't know what does. When I think of bias in the judicial system, I don't immediately point the finger at machine learning algorithms and say "if we implemented these types of systems, then we'd be biased" -- instead, I look at peer juries and law enforcement officers as the source of bias, things like "Stop and Frisk" or "driving while black." You have very faulty systems in place like plea bargaining which effectively nullify due process and encourage false confessions in order to obtain a guaranteed lighter sentence. You have prosecutors with their own illicit motives like appearing in public to be "tough on crime" resulting in such atrocities as Aaron Swartz -- this very concept of "making an example out of somebody" is a biased one. Someone brought up the point that "bias can be inserted accidentally, by well-meaning programmers" in an unintentional matter. On the other hand, right now, instead of employing some well-meaning programmer who is trying their very best to make sure things are fair, you have policies in place like racial profiling which are INTENTIONALLY biased. Which is worse? In my mind, ML has the potential of creating a bias-free judicial system more than we could ever hope for by continuing to rely on fickle, highly error-prone, and even outright malicious humans. People just need to get past the fact that a "cold-hearted," emotionless computer is in the judge's chair because that's EXACTLY what we want.