4 ms·
It doesn't really change things that much if the system was already corrupted. Human boards can just as easily state "risk" or anything else in their reviews to
by Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
It doesn't really change things that much if the system was already corrupted. Human boards can just as easily state "risk" or anything else in their reviews to deny parole. Algorithms can make corruption and rights-denial more efficient and this can then be used to replace any remaining human boards that were genuinely trying to do a good job in determining fit for parole. Its actually pretty dystopian when I put it that way though.
- Smeevy 2y agoI don't disagree, but I think implementing this sort of review with software is dangerous in a different way than making bad behavior more efficient. A parole board can have dissent and differing personal experience in its ranks. There can be disagreement, but that discussion might lead to a more right or more wrong outcome. When you have the number spit out from some case management, there's no arguing with it. We just turned the programmers that wrote that bit of code into unassailable gods of the process, with whom we can only communicate with through Jira tickets. It isn't more right or more wrong, but it is consistent with the variables provided. That mindless consistency applied to human situations like this quickly becomes horrific.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 2y agoYes, you hit the nail on the head. This kind of behavior is bad because of the way it shifts accountability. Previously, a human could ultimately be held responsible. Now, neither machine nor human can be held responsible for abhorrent behavior