3 ms·

There's a reason why humans are and will remain judges&jury.The point of a punishment is redemption, not malice or revenge.If it's not redemption then the judge

by sebow 5y ago

There's a reason why humans are and will remain judges&jury.The point of a punishment is redemption, not malice or revenge.If it's not redemption then the judge will be affected by his own hand, sooner or later.He will thus become more just in his actions.No this cannot happen behind a screen Then again this discussion is pointless, since big corporations enjoy both the privileges of being "private"(ironically while also treated as public forums by the legal systems) while not being hold responsible for their own content.Something censored by 'the alg'?Well, Section 230 vaguely says anything can be censored as long as the motivation behind it is also vaguely explained,and of course they cannot be held under scrutiny because technically "it's a private company[...]". What people should remember is that every action has a price.You not only vote for your favorite candidate when elections come but you also vote with your wallet, the products you buy, services you use, every decision you make in your life.Complain about google when registered with a gmail account? Not an argument.We cannot allow ourselves to continue in an uneven playing field due to morality.The bigger player doesn't have morals.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tyingq 5y ago
>There's a reason why humans are and will remain judges&jury. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/should-we-be-afraid-of-ai-in-the-criminal-justice-system/592084/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/should-we-... Unfortunately, I don't think we're far from AI deciding what the terms of plea deals are, and what sentences to hand down in a trial.
- sebow 5y ago
  Skimming through the article something jumped at me and that's where indeed the actual danger is: ai-based "recommendations" for someone who is or not high-risk.In this case from what i see the decision was still made by a human, but the fact is that most of the judging came from an algorithm.I don't think humans will be replaced as ultimate deciders(let's hope for this, though i'm pretty optimistic), but we need to be careful about who, or better said what we introduce in the pipeline.Because a decider will use the algorithm as a scapegoat for making a decision, just like we already use any other person/object/variable as a scapegoat for our decisions. Algorithms and such systems are a double-edged sword.They're good for analyzing potential threats for a defensive approach(thus why they maybe incriminate too much)but they're not, and >will not< be able to do the proper judgement for a person.Because they inherently cannot comprehend, simulate, or understand the human potential, spirit, that ultimately someone can fundamentally change(whether they choose to do so is another question).This is ultimately a very philosophical concept of what and what cannot science explain, and for the most part it cannot explain how a person who is at it's deepest point can become a very good person given the promise (mostly self-made) of redemption.
- EricE 5y ago
  "Unfortunately, I don't think we're far from AI deciding what the terms of plea deals are, and what sentences to hand down in a trial." AI is just a puppet of those who program them. And a convenient scapegoat to hide behind. Never forget that. There is nothing magically more objective about a AI.

by sebow 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tyingq 5y ago

>There's a reason why humans are and will remain judges&jury. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/should-we-be-afraid-of-ai-in-the-criminal-justice-system/592084/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/should-we-... Unfortunately, I don't think we're far from AI deciding what the terms of plea deals are, and what sentences to hand down in a trial.

sebow 5y ago
Skimming through the article something jumped at me and that's where indeed the actual danger is: ai-based "recommendations" for someone who is or not high-risk.In this case from what i see the decision was still made by a human, but the fact is that most of the judging came from an algorithm.I don't think humans will be replaced as ultimate deciders(let's hope for this, though i'm pretty optimistic), but we need to be careful about who, or better said what we introduce in the pipeline.Because a decider will use the algorithm as a scapegoat for making a decision, just like we already use any other person/object/variable as a scapegoat for our decisions. Algorithms and such systems are a double-edged sword.They're good for analyzing potential threats for a defensive approach(thus why they maybe incriminate too much)but they're not, and >will not< be able to do the proper judgement for a person.Because they inherently cannot comprehend, simulate, or understand the human potential, spirit, that ultimately someone can fundamentally change(whether they choose to do so is another question).This is ultimately a very philosophical concept of what and what cannot science explain, and for the most part it cannot explain how a person who is at it's deepest point can become a very good person given the promise (mostly self-made) of redemption.
EricE 5y ago
"Unfortunately, I don't think we're far from AI deciding what the terms of plea deals are, and what sentences to hand down in a trial." AI is just a puppet of those who program them. And a convenient scapegoat to hide behind. Never forget that. There is nothing magically more objective about a AI.