> It's really hard for me to believe that gut feeling is better than data. This is exactly the problem. People assume that data means something by virtue of it

> It's really hard for me to believe that gut feeling is better than data. This is exactly the problem. People assume that data means something by virtue of it being data. Having a judge make a decision based on gut feelings might not be any more accurate, but at least people wouldn't assume that it was accurate. People would look at it and realize that it was arbitrary. If the data isn't giving good results, then at least we should use a system that makes that fact obvious. > A recent very critical report of such systems said that the margin of error for individuals could be as great as between 5% and 95% At a certain point, it would be just as accurate, and far more honest, for us to just flip a few coins. Get it out in the open what we're doing. Get rid of the built-in assumptions people have that the system is fair or predictive just because it's based on data. Make observers live with the fact that it's arbitrary.