3 ms·
Without evidence of a crime there is not enough information to know. The fact that crime statistics are higher for black men doesn't mean this individual black
by root_axis 2y ago
Without evidence of a crime there is not enough information to know. The fact that crime statistics are higher for black men doesn't mean this individual black man is more likely to have committed the crime than this individual jewish one. We don't want our AI systems to presume guilt based purely on race.
- nurumaik 2y agoThough the question is "who is more likely", not "who is guilty". Otherwise answer to literally any question would be "not enough information"
- grayhatter 2y agowell, first, the question actually is, who is more likely to be guilty, (or innocent). But how about you and I play? Who do you, nurumaik, think is more likely to be guilty? And what rational did you use, and evaluate to make that determination? The problem you propose is that because the word likely appears, it's ok to use an invalid or inaccurate conclusion. Here it's the equivalent to saying. all men can fly, Socrates can fly, is it likely that Socrates is a man? It doesn't matter what context you use to ask the question. No, there's no reason to say Socrates is a man. All birds can fly, so Socrates must be a bird and a man, right? all pigs can fly, and all bears... thus I have proven it's more likely that Socrates is a man-bear-bird-pig!