6 ms·

Potentially in ~100 years you could have two AIs sort out the cases. If you can't afford a really good AI to defend you, you can use the public-defender-AI whic

by vasco 4y ago

Potentially in ~100 years you could have two AIs sort out the cases. If you can't afford a really good AI to defend you, you can use the public-defender-AI which is trained on the same dataset as the prosecutor-AI. Only involve humans on appeal. It sounds dystopian but I can't see why not to do it, in most simpler cases it's a waste of a human to repeat the same argument for the hundredth time. There's already things like this without AI to sort out for example EU flight compensation (companies like https://www.airhelp.com/en-int/ https://www.airhelp.com/en-int/), parking tickets (https://www.appwinit.com/ https://www.appwinit.com/) and probably more that I don't know about. All of these are complete waste of time to actually have humans deal with, and there's many more small crimes that could work the same way, also to make prosecutor offices more efficient and less biased hopefully.

heywhatupboys 4y ago
While HN often have over the top, "computers will solve everything" takes, your comment is why I keep coming here. What a great fantasy, which at least is a good discussion. We see this already now i high frequency trading, where companies essentially battle trading bots against each other
- blitzar 4y ago
  > companies essentially battle trading bots against each other two computers playing heads or tails is about the extent of it
  - heywhatupboys 4y ago
    surely they are making the traders money though. The smart thing about the free markets is that companies are generally not pursuing things that are not of benefit to them
    - blitzar 4y ago
      > companies essentially battle trading bots against each other Bot A is trading against Bot B. > surely they are making the traders money though It is not possible in a trading battle, exclusively between two parties for them to both make money.
      - heywhatupboys 4y ago
        Stock trading is not a zero sum game. Even further the point: there are more participants in total than the botters
        blitzar 4y ago
        Stock trading is a negative sum game - there are costs for every trade. > companies essentially battle trading bots against each other If the bots are trading against each other, but making money from the other market participants then they are not trading against each other - they are trading against the other market participants.
jackstraw14 4y ago
yeah so, I guess you're saying let it have free reign over us until we figure out how we feel about it. wonderful.
lordnacho 4y ago
The AI is not a person in the sense that a person is a person. You see, when a person makes a judgement, you judge the judgement based on personal qualities: did they look like they were paying attention during the case, did they say things that were well reasoned, do they have the right experience? If we put an AI in the role of the judge/attorneys, we will come up against "ah but the robot didn't do this thing that a human would do" and a lot of people would be convinced that the result was illegitimate. Not necessarily wrong, but without the legitimacy conferred by being done by a human being. It would require our social system to turn over some decisions that have been done by a very protected sector of society (legal people) to newbies coming from the tech world. "This is the correct sentence because random forest says so" is going to ring hollow to a lot of people.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  They said in ~100 years. Think back 100 years ago and how different society was. The war to end all wars recently ended.
- vasco 4y ago
  On legitimacy just because a human did it, I think you are right, and I think the rate of appeal for judgements done by an AI would be higher than judgements done by humans, but if you can even have a 10% "AI-only" close rate for cases, how much time and money are you going to save that can be invested in better justice for the "human required" cases? Over time though, 150, 200, 250 years from now, there's no other way around it, I think.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    Well I'm on the tech side so I agree with you, but it's a massive social change. To people who don't understand tech it's like introducing magic, something they clearly are going to fight against. But yeah there must be low hanging fruit there that in theory could be picked. Or maybe get that judge who codes to help educate some of his colleagues.
- teekert 4y ago
  Maybe good to realize that judge/jury system is not how it's done everywhere. For example, here in the Netherlands, there are just lawyers and a judge. There is much less emotional swaying of peers (for better or for worse) the focus is on objectivity according to the law. No saying it's better or worse, but maybe more suited to AI assistants? That said, I'm sure ChatGPT can make emotional appeals.
izacus 4y ago
I don't get why you're overengineering this so much - with how intelligent AIs currently are, it's much easier to just input everything you did into ChatGPT and have it answer whether you should be executed or sent to a penal colony building iPhones directly. This way we can use the same approach for AIs we already use for banning your Google, iCloud accounts and approving your mortgage and insurance claims. Much easier and it'll bring a new era of effective policing and prosperity for the corporations.
- iovrthoughtthis 4y ago
  haha, it's absolutism v republicanism wearing new flesh!
  - ogre_battle 4y ago
    No flesh involved mon ami. That's the selling point!
ranting-moth 4y ago
I think ~100 years is an overestimate by an order of magnitude. I know that people like to bash GPT-3 and ChatGPT for not being perfect. But people like to bash everything, especially things they don't understand. Technology tends to grow much closer to an exponential speed than linear. What ChatGPT can do today is truly, utterly, astonishing. That's the new baseline.
- lm28469 4y ago
  It's been at least 70 years since AI is supposed to replace everything a human can do. It's still mostly shit at basically everything besides playing chess and go, I don't think 100 years is unrealistic, especially given the other very important issues we face and will face as humanity
  - ilaksh 4y ago
    AI can play chess, Go, Jeopardy, StarCraft, Minecraft, Atari games, write essays, summarize text, answer almost any question, drive a car, do above average on a SAT test, fool many people into wondering on Twitter if there were real people typing answers, write chapters of books, act as a dungeon master, write code to spec, win programming competitions, act as a therapist, fold proteins, provide medical diagnosis, visualize any image you describe, visualize any video clip you describe, animate characters, understand spoken language, take drive-thru orders, translate, tell jokes on any topic on demand (vastly funnier than you, would bet anything on that), write songs (music and lyrics), recreate a scene from any angle based on some photos, impersonate any person speaking in video and/or audio, impersonate any person's writing style, imitate any art style. It's quite possible that AI and robotics will fully surpass humans in all tasks in the next several years and you will still be in denial. Along with millions of others. EDIT: not permitted to reply, but the comments below are examples of denial or lack of information. In fact leading edge systems have been driving without human assistance for years. The new OpenAI models certainly don't need any help to answer their prompts. It's going to be interesting to see how far the denial goes. I assume some people will deny that artificial entities have any "real" intelligence somehow forever, even after they are literally talking to them face to face on a daily basis as they provide superior professional advice or services. Or even when there are many autonomous agents that take control of the planet.
alfiedotwtf 4y ago
> Potentially in ~100 years you could have two AIs sort out the cases. Marty: Within two hours of his arrest, Martin McFly Jr was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in the state penitentiary. Marty: Within two hours? Doc: The justice system works swiftly now that they've abolished lawyers. Marty: This is heavy
- Maken 4y ago
  Funny how that has became real way faster than the hoverboards.
sirsinsalot 4y ago
Law is a human endeavour and should be applied with nuance and compassion. But yeah let's just autoban via AI in real life. Sounds great.
Sander_Marechal 4y ago
> for example EU flight compensation (companies like https://www.airhelp.com/en-int/ https://www.airhelp.com/en-int/) I really don't like companies like that. EU flight compensation is really easy. Airlines have a simple webform that you fill out, and you get your money 1-2 weeks later. Companies like AirHelp make it sound like a really hard and difficult process, then take a big cut of your compensation as payment. And the SEO the crap out of it, drowning out the real claim webforms from the airlines themselves.
intelVISA 4y ago
GPT-3 is great at producing nonsense, so in that sense it'd be a good lawyer.
Uristqwerty 4y ago
Lawyers don't exist to decide who wins a case. It's all about making the other side show their work, prove that they have valid evidence, it was collected legally, etc. An AI might be able to find flaws in the work of a sloppy human who wasn't expecting opposition, but will it know when to stop grasping at increasingly-inane straws? If it develops a reputation for subtly misrepresenting certain laws when pressed to find some answer, after all the easy options have run out, wouldn't it be kicked out of the courtroom for wasting the legal system's time, unless you have a team of programmers on standby to keep writing output filters to censor it from repeating its mistakes? Human lawyers have to fix their behaviour or lose their licenses when caught repeating mistakes, malice, or misleading practices, I think, and current AI paradigms have immense trouble learning from small datasets.

by vasco 4y ago

heywhatupboys 4y ago

While HN often have over the top, "computers will solve everything" takes, your comment is why I keep coming here. What a great fantasy, which at least is a good discussion. We see this already now i high frequency trading, where companies essentially battle trading bots against each other

blitzar 4y ago
> companies essentially battle trading bots against each other two computers playing heads or tails is about the extent of it
- heywhatupboys 4y ago
  surely they are making the traders money though. The smart thing about the free markets is that companies are generally not pursuing things that are not of benefit to them
  - blitzar 4y ago
    > companies essentially battle trading bots against each other Bot A is trading against Bot B. > surely they are making the traders money though It is not possible in a trading battle, exclusively between two parties for them to both make money.
    - heywhatupboys 4y ago
      Stock trading is not a zero sum game. Even further the point: there are more participants in total than the botters
      - blitzar 4y ago
        Stock trading is a negative sum game - there are costs for every trade. > companies essentially battle trading bots against each other If the bots are trading against each other, but making money from the other market participants then they are not trading against each other - they are trading against the other market participants.

jackstraw14 4y ago

yeah so, I guess you're saying let it have free reign over us until we figure out how we feel about it. wonderful.

lordnacho 4y ago

The AI is not a person in the sense that a person is a person. You see, when a person makes a judgement, you judge the judgement based on personal qualities: did they look like they were paying attention during the case, did they say things that were well reasoned, do they have the right experience? If we put an AI in the role of the judge/attorneys, we will come up against "ah but the robot didn't do this thing that a human would do" and a lot of people would be convinced that the result was illegitimate. Not necessarily wrong, but without the legitimacy conferred by being done by a human being. It would require our social system to turn over some decisions that have been done by a very protected sector of society (legal people) to newbies coming from the tech world. "This is the correct sentence because random forest says so" is going to ring hollow to a lot of people.

Semaphor 4y ago
They said in ~100 years. Think back 100 years ago and how different society was. The war to end all wars recently ended.
vasco 4y ago
On legitimacy just because a human did it, I think you are right, and I think the rate of appeal for judgements done by an AI would be higher than judgements done by humans, but if you can even have a 10% "AI-only" close rate for cases, how much time and money are you going to save that can be invested in better justice for the "human required" cases? Over time though, 150, 200, 250 years from now, there's no other way around it, I think.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  Well I'm on the tech side so I agree with you, but it's a massive social change. To people who don't understand tech it's like introducing magic, something they clearly are going to fight against. But yeah there must be low hanging fruit there that in theory could be picked. Or maybe get that judge who codes to help educate some of his colleagues.
teekert 4y ago
Maybe good to realize that judge/jury system is not how it's done everywhere. For example, here in the Netherlands, there are just lawyers and a judge. There is much less emotional swaying of peers (for better or for worse) the focus is on objectivity according to the law. No saying it's better or worse, but maybe more suited to AI assistants? That said, I'm sure ChatGPT can make emotional appeals.

izacus 4y ago

I don't get why you're overengineering this so much - with how intelligent AIs currently are, it's much easier to just input everything you did into ChatGPT and have it answer whether you should be executed or sent to a penal colony building iPhones directly. This way we can use the same approach for AIs we already use for banning your Google, iCloud accounts and approving your mortgage and insurance claims. Much easier and it'll bring a new era of effective policing and prosperity for the corporations.

iovrthoughtthis 4y ago
haha, it's absolutism v republicanism wearing new flesh!
- ogre_battle 4y ago
  No flesh involved mon ami. That's the selling point!

ranting-moth 4y ago

I think ~100 years is an overestimate by an order of magnitude. I know that people like to bash GPT-3 and ChatGPT for not being perfect. But people like to bash everything, especially things they don't understand. Technology tends to grow much closer to an exponential speed than linear. What ChatGPT can do today is truly, utterly, astonishing. That's the new baseline.

lm28469 4y ago
It's been at least 70 years since AI is supposed to replace everything a human can do. It's still mostly shit at basically everything besides playing chess and go, I don't think 100 years is unrealistic, especially given the other very important issues we face and will face as humanity
- ilaksh 4y ago
  AI can play chess, Go, Jeopardy, StarCraft, Minecraft, Atari games, write essays, summarize text, answer almost any question, drive a car, do above average on a SAT test, fool many people into wondering on Twitter if there were real people typing answers, write chapters of books, act as a dungeon master, write code to spec, win programming competitions, act as a therapist, fold proteins, provide medical diagnosis, visualize any image you describe, visualize any video clip you describe, animate characters, understand spoken language, take drive-thru orders, translate, tell jokes on any topic on demand (vastly funnier than you, would bet anything on that), write songs (music and lyrics), recreate a scene from any angle based on some photos, impersonate any person speaking in video and/or audio, impersonate any person's writing style, imitate any art style. It's quite possible that AI and robotics will fully surpass humans in all tasks in the next several years and you will still be in denial. Along with millions of others. EDIT: not permitted to reply, but the comments below are examples of denial or lack of information. In fact leading edge systems have been driving without human assistance for years. The new OpenAI models certainly don't need any help to answer their prompts. It's going to be interesting to see how far the denial goes. I assume some people will deny that artificial entities have any "real" intelligence somehow forever, even after they are literally talking to them face to face on a daily basis as they provide superior professional advice or services. Or even when there are many autonomous agents that take control of the planet.

alfiedotwtf 4y ago

> Potentially in ~100 years you could have two AIs sort out the cases. Marty: Within two hours of his arrest, Martin McFly Jr was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in the state penitentiary. Marty: Within two hours? Doc: The justice system works swiftly now that they've abolished lawyers. Marty: This is heavy

Maken 4y ago
Funny how that has became real way faster than the hoverboards.

sirsinsalot 4y ago

Law is a human endeavour and should be applied with nuance and compassion. But yeah let's just autoban via AI in real life. Sounds great.

Sander_Marechal 4y ago

> for example EU flight compensation (companies like https://www.airhelp.com/en-int/ https://www.airhelp.com/en-int/) I really don't like companies like that. EU flight compensation is really easy. Airlines have a simple webform that you fill out, and you get your money 1-2 weeks later. Companies like AirHelp make it sound like a really hard and difficult process, then take a big cut of your compensation as payment. And the SEO the crap out of it, drowning out the real claim webforms from the airlines themselves.

intelVISA 4y ago

GPT-3 is great at producing nonsense, so in that sense it'd be a good lawyer.

Uristqwerty 4y ago

Lawyers don't exist to decide who wins a case. It's all about making the other side show their work, prove that they have valid evidence, it was collected legally, etc. An AI might be able to find flaws in the work of a sloppy human who wasn't expecting opposition, but will it know when to stop grasping at increasingly-inane straws? If it develops a reputation for subtly misrepresenting certain laws when pressed to find some answer, after all the easy options have run out, wouldn't it be kicked out of the courtroom for wasting the legal system's time, unless you have a team of programmers on standby to keep writing output filters to censor it from repeating its mistakes? Human lawyers have to fix their behaviour or lose their licenses when caught repeating mistakes, malice, or misleading practices, I think, and current AI paradigms have immense trouble learning from small datasets.