Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strongpoint]

Not sure if this more appropriate for "random thoughts" thread or here... but I wonder, has anyone tried making an "AI" (yes yes I know the current state of the art) that tries to generate "optimal" court rulings?  Instead of, oh, I dunno, trying to get optimal advertising or something annoying like that?

I wonder how you'd avoid bias in such a thing.

For example, this case would be weighing states rights, women's rights, value of life, burden of care, propensity of a law to have loopholes or otherwise be misused, etc. etc.

Even if we assume that we can train an AI to this degree... What training data will you use? History of court rulings? Garbage in, garbage out.

[Starver]

Not sure if this more appropriate for "random thoughts" thread or here... but I wonder, has anyone tried making an "AI" (yes yes I know the current state of the art) that tries to generate "optimal" court rulings?  Instead of, oh, I dunno, trying to get optimal advertising or something annoying like that?

I wonder how you'd avoid bias in such a thing.

For example, this case would be weighing states rights, women's rights, value of life, burden of care, propensity of a law to have loopholes or otherwise be misused, etc. etc.

Optimal by whose measure? We're getting into territory such as that thing where algorithms do recruit-filtering, but bevause they learnt from prior recruitings they (dispassionately) discriminated against qualifications from women-only collages, or whatever it was.

Even the advertising algorithms are suspect, as even when it is proven (by the vendors of the algorithm) that people who viewed ads for A, B or C were more likely to buy (respectively) A, B or C, there's good reason to believe that cause and effect is reversed (i.e. that someone is generally likely to buy A anyway, and the algorithm shows them an ad for A because of that, and it doesn't really make them more likely to buy A, just scores high on "shown A, bought A" measurements).

In various places there are already various thoughts about predicting recidivism factors, the societal benefit/harm balance of incarceration vs community/financial/etc punishments, the general removal of the institutionalised drive deeper into the criminal-classes and the like, especially with youth-aged offenders where it would be nice not to send a mildly troubled youngster into a boot-camp for a future life of more advanced and pernicious crime.  But I don't know if anybody has put 'trial trials' into practice to try to test the theories and outcomes. Part of the problem being that judges... imperfect as they are... would have to be asked to heavily sway their judgements by some "be lenient/be harsh" suggestion at the behest of some computer printout or other, whose assessment may be very unlike their own instincts but supposedly the 'better' judge-of-circumstances than the judge.

(Or, because early testing would ideally need double-blind testing, would actually be the opposite assessment of the algorithmically-assessed required result, potentially sending the merely misguided into chokey and letting the obligate offender go 'free', in order to examine how the computerised suggestions compare against their antithesis both for the future prospects of the convicted and how the courtroom deals with potentially (not necessarily incorrect) counterintuitive advice. The ethical aspects here are troublesome. A legal version of the Trolley Problem, for example, where you know that some people are going to be hurt as it is, but would you then knowingly try to switch that to guarantee others will be hurt instead, however fewer or supposedly less deserving of your sympathy?)


2xNinjas, saying what I said in fewer words. Par for the course!

[Dunamisdeos]

Think about all the perfect AI systems in Science Fiction. We invariably have to explain their existence via hand-wavey science words, or eldritch, unknowable alien forces.

Phasers? They focus energy, pew pew. Transporters? They turn matter into some other form that can now be transmitted over distances. Perfect AI? Well, we reversed the polarity of the thought-powered spockdrive intergenerator matrix. Alternatively, it was probably Q. We legit can't conceive of how the thing might actually be done, even in our most fantastical fictions.

TLDR, by the time we are actually able to create a perfect decision-making AI, we will no longer need to create a perfect decision-making AI. That's not to say we shouldn't do our best, but a certain amount of grace does need to be present for our fellow imperfect meatbags. Except for our political opponents, we should make them into hamburger. USA!

[Sirus]

We'd probably wind up with something like the Judge Tree from the Megaman Battle Network series. Punish criminals with one hundred hours of zapping!

[Frumple]

Though, like. Just 100 hours of zapping might actually be an improvement over the current state of things. Assuming it could be sequential, that's just five days or so, which... I'm pretty sure a lot of people would take over a 20 year sentence for shoplifting, or whatever.

[EuchreJack]

Eh, such arguments have been used to justify Corporal Punishment for years. But it turns out people are quite adverse to public pain, to the point they fight against it harder than even short-term incarceration.

Two other fallacies:
1) The Prosecutor and/or the Judge gets to choose the punishment, NOT the defendant. The defendant simply gets to decide whether or not to accept the deal or go to Trial. LCS kinda fucked that up.
2) The specific case you are referring to is a problem with persistent felony laws, or the Three Strikes Laws. That particular defendant was convinced of stealing a set of Golf Clubs worth enough to put him in Felony theft range, but since he had 2 prior felonies, he was "automatically" sentenced to 20-to-life.

[Sirus]

Though, like. Just 100 hours of zapping might actually be an improvement over the current state of things. Assuming it could be sequential, that's just five days or so, which... I'm pretty sure a lot of people would take over a 20 year sentence for shoplifting, or whatever.

I mean, have you ever been electrically shocked? It's extremely unpleasant and often painful, despite usually lasting mere seconds at most. 100 hours of it, even spread out, would probably kill anyone not in exceptional health and even then cause some lingering or permanent damage.

[None]

Supreme court overturned precedent again. It's now legal for teachers to lead/coerce prayer in the classroom and/or extracurricular activities.

Here's NBC on it: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-coach-public-school-prayer-case-rcna31662

Whole ordeal reached the courts because a coach would get out onto the fifty yard line, collect the student athletes, and pray prominently.

And what I feel is a poignant snippet:

Lower federal courts said that because he chose to say his prayers in such a prominent place, he was acting as a public employee and his conduct was therefore not protected by the First Amendment. Those rulings cited past Supreme Court decisions that said when public employees act in their official capacities, they are speaking more for the government than for themselves.

Former Vice President Mike Pence praised Monday's ruling in a statement, saying, “Americans of faith do not turn their devotion off and on like a light switch, and we must reject any attempt by the government to control private religious expression — especially those who call on their faith when answering the call to participate in public service.” The nonprofit conservative advocacy group he founded, Advancing American Freedom, filed a friend of the court brief in the case.

Katy Joseph, the director of policy and advocacy at the advocacy group Interfaith Alliance, said the decision "dismantles decades of progress."

“Exploiting his position of authority, coach Joseph Kennedy pushed players to participate in prayer in the middle of the field immediately after games," Joseph said. "This was no private expression of devotion, as he and his lawyers claim. Instead, Mr. Kennedy forced students to choose between their religious freedom and being part of the team — an agonizing decision that no student should ever be forced to confront."

So that's cool. Wonder how long until students are required to say the pledge of allegiance.

My roommate said something about openly allowing townhalls to be led by prayer as well but with exclusively Christian wording in the ruling, but I haven't seen that yet or have a link about it.

[Dunamisdeos]

It opens the door to a requirement of prayer and worship in school.

To be clear, there should not be any problem with a coach praying on school grounds. There should never, ever be any coercion. And you can bet your ass that the second any Muslim tries this, their ass is going to be under fire for it.

[MrRoboto75]

It opens the door to a requirement of prayer and worship in school.

To be clear, there should not be any problem with a coach praying on school grounds. There should never, ever be any coercion. And you can bet your ass that the second any Muslim tries this, their ass is going to be under fire for it.

I just have to imagine a black guy kneeling

[hector13]

See I don’t like the ruling, but I don’t think he encouraged anyone who didn’t want to pray to go with him. He also did it for like, 8 years before another coach complained to his principal about it and he was told to stop, and then he sued the school.

I want Satanic rituals in schools now though, see how far their religious freedom shit extends.

[None]

It opens the door to a requirement of prayer and worship in school.

To be clear, there should not be any problem with a coach praying on school grounds. There should never, ever be any coercion. And you can bet your ass that the second any Muslim tries this, their ass is going to be under fire for it.

The school had repeatedly told the coach to please do it privately and not on the 50yd line on the football field during games, as he was at that point representing the school in his performance. He continued to do so in objection to the school's requests.

Absolutely should a coach be allowed to pray on school grounds. Absolutely not should they lead prayer as an educator, a teacher, or authority figure for students. I'm in agreement with you here, and I'm not looking forward to the selective privilege for Christianity in this ruling. This will not be carried evenly.

[Egan_BW]

I want Satanic rituals in schools now though, see how far their religious freedom shit extends.

It doesn't extend.

[hector13]

I want Satanic rituals in schools now though, see how far their religious freedom shit extends.

It doesn't extend.

Of course not, but I’d like to see someone try.

Even just a student wearing a colander in school.

[anewaname]

Even if this coach is sincere and has religious tolerance, others may not. The underlying risk is the development of "religious custom" that isn't religious, but exclusionary.