3 ms·

> and responsibility! You won't get this though. If the machines are the only ones capable of making the calculations with less error then a human can only val

by kodah 6y ago

> and responsibility! You won't get this though. If the machines are the only ones capable of making the calculations with less error then a human can only validate higher level criteria. Things like "responsibility" and "accountability" become very vague words in these scenarios, so be specific. A human should be able to trace calculations software makes through auditing. The software will need to be good at indicating what needs auditing and what doesn't for the sake of time and effort. You'll probably also need a way for inmates to start an auditing process.

derefr 6y ago
The human isn't there to check the computer's work; the human is there to look for overriding special-case circumstances the computer can't understand, i.e. executing act-utilitarianism where the computer on its own would be executing rule-utilitarianism. Usually, in any case where a bureaucracy could generate a Kafkaesque nightmare scenario, just forcing a human being to actually decide whether to implement the computer's decision or not (rather than having their job be "do whatever the computer tells you"), will remove the Kafkaesque-ness. (This is, in fact, the whole reason we have courts: to put a human—a judge—in the critical path for applying criminal law to people.)
- kodah 6y ago
  I never disagreed with the idea that humans should be involved. I was concerned about the use of "responsible". Let's be specific who you're comparing a judge to though. A guard, social worker, or bureaucrat with the guard being most likely. A guard probably has a lot of things to do on any given day, administrative exercises would only be part of them. The same could be said of a social worker. This is why I cautioned against making someone who is likely underpaid and doesn't have much time capital "responsible" for something as important as how long someone stays in the system.

by kodah 6y ago

derefr 6y ago

The human isn't there to check the computer's work; the human is there to look for overriding special-case circumstances the computer can't understand, i.e. executing act-utilitarianism where the computer on its own would be executing rule-utilitarianism. Usually, in any case where a bureaucracy could generate a Kafkaesque nightmare scenario, just forcing a human being to actually decide whether to implement the computer's decision or not (rather than having their job be "do whatever the computer tells you"), will remove the Kafkaesque-ness. (This is, in fact, the whole reason we have courts: to put a human—a judge—in the critical path for applying criminal law to people.)

kodah 6y ago
I never disagreed with the idea that humans should be involved. I was concerned about the use of "responsible". Let's be specific who you're comparing a judge to though. A guard, social worker, or bureaucrat with the guard being most likely. A guard probably has a lot of things to do on any given day, administrative exercises would only be part of them. The same could be said of a social worker. This is why I cautioned against making someone who is likely underpaid and doesn't have much time capital "responsible" for something as important as how long someone stays in the system.