3 ms·
> #2 never had much of a compelling argument given auditability. There are already AI systems which generate "scores" based on likelyhood to commit another cri
by verall 3y ago
> #2 never had much of a compelling argument given auditability.
There are already AI systems which generate "scores" based on likelyhood to commit another crime (used in parole cases) and likelyhood to be a "good tenant" (used by landlords).
Don't underestimate the difficulty to fix something when the people in charge of that thing do not want it fixed.
- XorNot 3y agoThe problem is that's still not an "AI" problem: it's a "for some reason a court can decide to use a privately supplied black box decision making system". Like, the ludicrous part is that sentence - not that it's an AI, but that any system at all is allowed to be implemented like this. Not to mention the more serious question as to whether it can even be allowed to apply personal penalty based on statistical likelihood like this: i.e. if a recidivism rate from a white-box system was calculated at 70%, does that mean the penalty to be applied to the specific individual under question is justified? Now that's an actual, complicated question: i.e. while no system based on demographic statistics should be used like that, what about a system based on analysis of the individuals statements and behaviors? When a human makes a judgement call that's what we're actually doing, but how do you codify that in law safely?