5 ms·

On the other hand, a justice system which has most of the menial tasks automated might have more resources to do the important tasks well. Similarly, Google co

• maxxxxx 8y ago
  I know an Android dev who had his Play account shut down for an unjustified reason. It took him a very long time to reactivate it. Especially the little guy doesn't get much attention from humans. That was a few years ago. Maybe it's better now.
  • icebraining 8y ago
    I'm not saying Google's support is good. I'm saying the automation is not necessarily the culprit for its ills.
    • tjoff 8y ago
      I'd say that the automation enables it to be an order of magnitude worse. And it will be worse for any entity that doesn't really care about it.
      • ams6110 8y ago
        It's probably worse for a few, and better for a lot. Maybe the Google automation is shutting down a hundred nefarious developers for every one legitimate developer. Without the automation all would be active; with the automation one guy gets screwed and it's hard for him to navigate his way back, but thousands of users are better off
        • maxxxxx 8y ago
          Most justice systems are built on the assumption that it's better to let 100 guilty people go than convicting one innocent person. Once we accept that it's OK to convict innocent people as long as the averages are fine then we are heading into serious trouble.
          • drivebycomment 8y ago
            You're comparing a merchant system with a criminal justice system. Obviously the cost or the downside of false positive is very different between those two, as well as the cost of making the judgement itself, given the difference in scale.
            • maxxxxx 8y ago
              We are talking about the justice system here.
• reaperducer 8y ago
  On the other hand, a justice system which has most of the menial tasks automated might have more resources to do the important tasks well. They said the same thing about banking when we got ATM's. But banking has only gotten worse, more impersonal, and more frustrating and alienating for the average person.
  • KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
    Need a source on this, I highly doubt it. Online banking and ATMs have been great for me.
  • the-pigeon 8y ago
    Out of curiosity could you explain what you mean? I'm not nearly old enough to remember prior to ATMs. But I love ATMs. I only have to go inside the bank to do things once every few years. Everything else is on the phone or ATM. And the people I deal with on the phone are almost always very helpful and knowledgeable. I know people have a lot of trouble with some of the big banks like Bank of America and Chase. But those aren't issues with the banking industry but those specific companies. There's plenty of smaller banks and credit unions who don't exploit their customers at every opportunity.
    • reaperducer 8y ago
      I'm not nearly old enough to remember prior to ATMs. I am. When ATM's started to become a thing, we were told that with ATM's automating the basics, the bankers and tellers would have more time for more personalized service, Banks would lower fees through cost savings, and we'd all have higher interest rates on our savings because the banks would save so much money. None of those things happened. Things just got worse. A couple of years ago I tried to get a loan. A credit union I tried to approach wouldn't let ask questions of someone on the phone, or in a branch, until I'd cleared the computer's online pre-screening. At another bank (Chase), a banker sat down with me, but was not able to discuss my finances in any way. All he could do was punch my information into his computer, and give me the same information I would have gotten by doing the same process online. Citibank, at least, let me talk to someone in person who seemed interested in my business. But then I went on vacation, and by the time I returned two weeks later, the offer was no longer valid and I was referred to the web site. Again, things have gotten worse not better. Just because you're too young to know that things were once better doesn't mean they're not worse.
• rocqua 8y ago
  If the escalation is accessible, everyone will try it. That includes anyone who got handled correctly. And as detection becomes more accurate, an even larger ratio of escalations will be blatantly wrong. This explains why slightly inept well meaning companies shy away from such escalation paths. I wonder about the stats on appeals in court. How many are successful. How many go to an appeal at all. How costly is a single appeal / how costly is the average successful appeal.
  • GFischer 8y ago
    Some games (League of Legends, Ingress) have or had crowdsourced 1st level appeals for minor infractions. Maybe that's the way to go. I know many volunteers answer Google's forums.
    • kkarakk 8y ago
      yes i want a random dude who thinks asian people are just naturally bad drivers to judge my traffic fine
    • notSupplied 8y ago
      That system (the tribunal) is gone. It has been replaced by ML (probably trained by Tribunal data) and hence 99% automated.
  • icebraining 8y ago
    "Escalation" implies the first decision is automated; I was suggesting more of a process where the "fact finding" is automated, but the decision is still manual. That said, even the system you're describing and with a 100% escalation rate should be cheaper than a fully manual process. The problem is that those "well meaning" companies aren't; their goal is to minimize cost, stopping only if it drops their revenue. But no system will be good with such goals.
• tivert 8y ago
  > have a mostly automated system detecting violations and such, and also a good human support system with power to override the decisions of the former; the two are not really incompatible. While that's true in the abstract, I don't think it's true in present society. Both private companies and government are under near-constant pressure to cut costs, and the people who are charged with implementing those cuts will be tempted to under-resource the human override team or cut it entirely. Quality of service isn't the priority.
  • icebraining 8y ago
    The exact same argument can be made to those criticizing the use of automation: it doesn't matter, because that pressure means it will be used anyway. And the whole discussion becomes meaningless.
    • hueving 8y ago
      No, when economic systems pressure companies into cutting corners, it's completely fair to criticize the situation. "Think of all of the money people are saving by allowing businesses to refuse service to disabled people." A system with massive net positive social utility does not alone justify injustice for a few.
• mtgx 8y ago
  Another way to look at it is that an organization that is willing to automate everything for the sake of efficiency/profit is probably not too interested in "adding a lot more quality human support to compensate for that extreme automation". Chances are it wants to automate 100% (or at least 99.99%) of it jobs and will strive to achieve that, while considering any human cost as "friction" or inefficiency that needs to be eliminated.
• bsder 8y ago
  > On the other hand, a justice system which has most of the menial tasks automated might have more resources to do the important tasks well. Justice systems are always about exceptions. Computers handle exceptions EXTREMELY poorly. A justice system should be required to have a human on record for every action taken against another human being. The computers can be used to verify this, but they should not be allowed to be primary.