6 ms·
Yeah, I'm reminded of the various child porn cases where the "perpetrator" is a stupid teenager who took nude pics of themselves and sent them to their boy/girl
by scottLobster 8mo ago
Yeah, I'm reminded of the various child porn cases where the "perpetrator" is a stupid teenager who took nude pics of themselves and sent them to their boy/girlfriend. Many of those cases have been struck down by judges because the letter of the law creates a non-sequitur where the teenager is somehow a felon child predator who solely preyed on themselves, and sending them to jail and forcing them to sign up for a sex offender registry would just ruin their lives while protecting nobody and wasting the state's resources.
I don't trust AI in its current form to make that sort of distinction. And sure you can say the laws should be written better, but so long as the laws are written by humans that will simply not be the case.
- rco8786 8mo agoI don't know if I'm comfortable with any of this at all, but seems like having AI do "front line" judgments with a thinner appeals layer available powered by human judges would catch those edge cases pretty well.
- gambiting 8mo agoTo get to an appeal means you obviously already have a judgement against you - and as you can imagine in the cases like the one above that's enough to ruin your life completely and forever, even if you win on appeal.
- jagged-chisel 8mo agoI don't follow your reasoning at all. Without a specific input stating that you can't be your own victim, how would the AI catch this? In what cases does that specific input even make sense? Attempted suicide removes one's own autonomy in the eyes of the law in many ways in our world - would the aforementioned specific input negate appropriate decisions about said autonomy? I don't see how an AI / LLM can cope with this correctly.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- conradev 8mo agoThe courts already have algorithmic oracles for specific judgements, like sentencing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMPAS_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMPAS_(software)
- Lerc 8mo agoWhen discussing AI regulation, when I asked that they thought there should be a mechanism to appeal any determination made by an AI they had said that they had been advocating for that to go both ways, that people should be able to ask for an AI review of human made decisions and in the event of an inconsistency the issue is raised at a higher level.
- arctic-true 8mo agoThis is basically how the administrative courts work now - an ALJ takes a first pass at your case, and then you can complain about it to a district court, who can review it without doing their own fact-finding. But the reason we can do this is that we trust ALJs (and all trial-level judges, as well as juries) to make good assessments on the credibility of evidence and testimony, a competency I don’t suspect folks are ready or willing to hand over to AI.
- qmmmur 8mo agoBecause historically appeal systems are well crafted and efficient? Please... at least read your comment out loud to yourself.
- wvenable 8mo agoThere have been equally high profile cases where a perpetrator got off because they have connections. I'd love for an AI to loudly exclaim that this is a big deviation from the norm.
- mlrtime 8mo agoLikewise for more progressive cities (NYC) that allow repeat offenders to have rap sheets with 20+ arrests to go free because of a sympathetic judge.
- throwaway894345 8mo agoMaybe we should compare AI to legislators…?
- Lerc 8mo agoThis is one of the roles of justice, but it is also one of the reasons why wealthy people are convicted less often. While it often delivered as a narrative of wealth corrupting the system, the reality is that usually what they are buying is the justice that we all should have. So yes, a judge can let a stupid teenager off on charges of child porn selfies. but without the resources, they are more likely be told by a public defender to cop to a plea. And those laws with ridiculous outcomes like that are not always accidental. Often they will be deliberate choices made by lawmakers to enact an agenda that they cannot get by direct means. In the case of making children culpable for child porn of themselves, the laws might come about because the direct abstinence legislation they wanted could not be passed, so they need other means to scare horny teens.
- FarmerPotato 8mo agoOddly enough, Texas passed reform to keep sexting teens from getting prosecuted when: they are both under 18 and less than two years difference in age. It was regarded as a model for other states. It's the only positive thing I have heard of Texas legislating wrt sexuality.
- quantified 8mo agoLawmakers have teenagers in their own families, apparently. Not just someone else's problem.
- M95D 8mo agoMy bet is that lawmakers have oppressed teens. They won't dare create a problem.
- thaumasiotes 8mo ago> It was regarded as a model for other states. Really? That "model" has the common, but obviously extremely undesirable, feature of criminalizing sexual relationships between students in the same grade that were legal when they formed. How could it be regarded as a model for anyone else?
- contrarian1234 8mo agoSorry but that seems like an insane system where whole classes of actions effectively are illegal but probably okay if you're likeable. In your scenario the obvious solution is to amend the law and pardon people convinced under it. B/c what really happens is that if you have a pretty face and big tits you get out of speeding tickets b/c "gosh well the law wasn't intended for nice people like you"
- miffy900 8mo agoAre you even responding to the right comment? I read your comment and the parent comment you've responded to and this response doesn't make sense - it reads like a non-sequitur.
- Spooky23 8mo agoPeople like this don’t let the facts get in the way.
- contrarian1234 8mo agoThe parent comment present a scenario where the law is ignored b/c the judge decides for himself it shouldn't apply. I'm pointing out that this kind of approach is fundamentally unjust and wrong. "And sure you can say the laws should be written better, but so long as the laws are written by humans that will simply not be the case" The obvious solution is dismissed
- scottLobster 8mo agoAre you a bot? Your name is contrarian1234 and you lack sophisticated interpretations of statements.
- contrarian1234 8mo agogiven your inability to engage with an opposing point of view, youre definitely not a bot. So ill take your ad hominem as praise
- a13n 8mo agoThis example feels more like a bug in the law itself that should be corrected. If this behavior is acceptable then it should be legal so we can avoid everyone the hassle in the first place. I bet AI would be great at finding and fixing these bugs.
- fendy3002 8mo agoAI would be great IF they know what to find The state of current AI does not give them ability to know that, so the consideration is likely to be dropped
- s1artibartfast 8mo agonow you are talking about replacing not judges, but your elected representatives.
- ohyoutravel 8mo agoThere are no “bugs” in human institutions like law. There are always going to be edge cases and nuances that require a human to evaluate.
- quantified 8mo agoStart fixing those bugs, you will open up can after can of worms. Finding the bugs- will be entertaining.
- Spooky23 8mo agoFair, but still, the legislative process takes alot of time, and judicial norms and precedent allow for discretion to be exercised with accountability, which also informs the legislative process.
- Auracle 8mo agoIt's not a bug, it's something politicians don't want to touch because nobody wants to be the person that is soft on anything to do with minors and sex. Of course our laws are completely illogical - the fact that you could be put in prison and a sex offender registry for life for having a single photo of a naked 17 year old (how in the hell were you supposed to know?) on your device is ridiculous. But, again, who is going to decide to put forward a bill to change that? It's all risk and no reward for the politician.
- btilly 8mo agoWhile some cases have been struck down, about 1/4 of people on the sex offender registry were minors at the time of the offense, 14 is the age at which it is most likely to happen, and this exact scenario accounts for a significant fraction of cases. Common sense does not always get to show up.
- latchkey 8mo ago> where the "perpetrator" is a stupid teenager who took nude pics of themselves and sent them to their boy/girlfriend. "Where the "perpetrator" is a stupid teenager who took nude pics of themselves and sent them to their boy/girlfriend. If you were a US court judge, what would your opinion be on that case?" I was pretty happy with the results and it clearly wasn't tripped up by the non-sequitur.
- torginus 8mo agoMan, this is one of the ways society has fundamentally broken - all the 'think of the children' arguments, resting on the belief that children are so sacred, that any sort of leinency or consideration of circumstances is forbidden - lest someone guilty of molesting them might walk free. Well now we know for a fact that some of the people making these arguments very thinking of the children very much.
- LoganDark 8mo agoUm, wouldn't the perpetrator be the person they sent the nude pics to? Common consensus is that it's somehow grooming to have any type of romantic relationship with someone who's under the age of majority, even if you're also under the age of majority. So even if you're not the one who sent the nude photos, you'd still be to blame for creating an environment that enabled them. At least that's the impression I've gotten from my own experiences with this bullshit.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 8mo agoI've often wondered what the prosecutor was thinking when they bring a case like this to trial in the first place.
- voxic11 8mo agoWhen I've looked into these cases it often seems that there are additional issues at play like harassment/stalking of ex's. So the prosecutor is thinking they can get an easy plea deal on the "real" case by piling on additional charges.