I have to challenge the statements of Jure Leskovik > They often have no feedback on whether they made the right decision Of course they do. They will see pe

I have to challenge the statements of Jure Leskovik > They often have no feedback on whether they made the right decision Of course they do. They will see people stood in front of them that have violated their parole all of the time. They can read their case notes and use the information to adjust future decisions. This of course is after a career of standing the other side of the bar as an advocate/attorney of those people, because that is what you have to do to become a judge in the first place. > and there is no knowledge-sharing between the judges. Except the whole legal system in the US is built on common-law. Literally the law being applied in a common way to everyone. Literally by knowledge sharing. If the esteemed academic is suggesting that parole decisions are being shared less well than judgements the fix seems to be rather simpler than ML. The idea that a ML algorithm is somehow less biased than a judge is of course just as absurd. A ML researcher is just as capable of using race, for instance, as a characteristic. They are just as capable of seeing a correlation without understanding the complex underlying causes. I choose the human judge.