Something to ponder... (Page 1/10)
williegoat MAR 20, 04:58 PM
Could the the judiciary be replaced by AI?

------------------
"Ain't no rest for the whiskers."

ray b MAR 20, 05:46 PM
some day in the future

NOT NOW

but the system needs it's butt kicked in hard
and reminded not only does actual innocence MATTER
IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE RULES AND RIGHTS BS
that is what higher court spend far too much time and efforts now

and where the WOKE movements are very important
to not pack kids off to prison like the nut con's demand
christo-facist is a real common path to political office
and they demand CONvictions to get CONvicts to pack prisons

they pretend the law and order regime has no victims
it does they just refuse to see them

that is where the RWNJ ANTI-WOKE B S IS TRAGIC
there is and will be strong bias in the so called but lacking of justice system
anti-woke nuts just reinforce the systems evil dark side
and worse are so damm proud of themselves for doing it
damm nut con on courts damm the rump for putting the worse ones there

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 03-20-2024).]

randye MAR 20, 11:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


but the system needs it's butt kicked in hard
and reminded not only does actual innocence MATTER
IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE RULES AND RIGHTS BS
that is what higher court spend far too much time and efforts now

and where the WOKE movements are very important






How many times have you been arrested?

How much time have you spent in jail / prison?
BingB MAR 22, 08:45 AM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

Could the judiciary be replaced by AI?





The jury could never be replaced by AI.

Judges maybe, but it would be very difficult. The law changes as society changes. Not sure how AI would deal with that.
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 22, 04:17 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

Could the the judiciary be replaced by AI?





Can it? Absolutely.
Would it be Constitutional? Absolutely not!
Should it be? 100% no...


Already though, there are several AI tools out there that are being used for judges to handle sentencing. All things aside of course... you know a certain crime in a certain state, and even in a certain county has a defined recourse / sentence structure. So, within those confines, there are programs that take into consideration the likelihood of a convict to recommit an act, and it provides recommended sentencing. This happens for both bench trials as well as jury-led trials.

UNFORTUNATELY... there was a case just a couple of years ago where a kid was sentenced based on the recommendations of an AI-based system that the judge used. The kid repealed, and it went all the way to the state Supreme Court (I forget the state, but I can look it up if you really want me to). The state supreme court ruled it was 100% constitutional. I find this appalling. I haven't done a whole lot of research, but I'm thinking I probably cannot find anywhere that it's specifically unconstitutional, but it really depends on me reading and re-reading Article three of the Constitution, as well as the 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment, as well as any subsequent amendments that address the judiciary process... and probably even the 9th amendment too could come into this.

For me personally, I find it absolutely horrifying.


One of the key benefits of having a HUMAN as a judge, is considering the impassioned pleas of the defendant, the defense attorney, and the character witnesses. Because an individual might fit into a unique age group, or group of individual types that might be more likely to recommit a crime, does not (in my mind) give the Judiciary the right to take away the "right of conscious" from the judge. Ultimately, the judge is still making the decision... but he/she may be swayed by the trust this individual has in the results of the AI model.

Like... I cannot express enough how much it horrifies me. Regardless... precedent is set when a court rules that such a thing is permissible; so even absent any laws to the contrary (that explicitly allow such actions), AI is now firmly allowed in that state (again, I forget the state), which means it may also be used as a "persuasive authority" in other states, even if not officially binding.


I just don't like it at all. For what it's worth, my career the last two to three years has all been in AI. I think it's great, but I also think it can be improperly applied. And this is a place where human authenticity, for all it's failure, is still much better than one that is based purely on "logic" (which is only as good as the learning model it's built from).



quote
Originally posted by BingB:
The jury could never be replaced by AI.

Judges maybe, but it would be very difficult. The law changes as society changes. Not sure how AI would deal with that.



Totally doable through simple knowledge graph completion, with model retraining through the orchestrator, which updates embeddings which result in an updated vector database to update / change the weights and tokens in the matrix. All of that is to say it learns from new information, and builds inferences to new concepts and ideas which update the knowledge graph. It's not a hard problem, and totally doable.

The question isn't IF it can be done, it's IF it should be done... and I sincerely mean that. Our judicial system, as imperfect as it may be, is the best most human thing we have in society. You destroy that, and you've destroyed the very fabric of what makes this all work.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-22-2024).]

BingB MAR 22, 05:24 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


Totally doable through simple knowledge graph completion, with model retraining through the orchestrator, which updates embeddings which result in an updated vector database to update / change the weights and tokens in the matrix. All of that is to say it learns from new information, and builds inferences to new concepts and ideas which update the knowledge graph. It's not a hard problem, and totally doable.

The question isn't IF it can be done, it's IF it should be done... and I sincerely mean that. Our judicial system, as imperfect as it may be, is the best most human thing we have in society. You destroy that, and you've destroyed the very fabric of what makes this all work.





Interesting position. I am kind of the opposite. I would say that if it can be done then it should be done. "Human error" is the biggest problem we have today. Most people screaming about problems with "the police" are usually actually screaming about the actions of bad individuals who happen to be police. I am sure judges are the same way. When you hear a story about a crazy decision the problem is more likely to be a crazy individual judge instead of "the system".

I understand the theory of AI, but not near enough about the specifics to know what its limits are.
olejoedad MAR 22, 07:22 PM
And there is that pesky ' jury of your peers' thingy.....
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 23, 08:30 AM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

And there is that pesky ' jury of your peers' thingy.....




Yes, that thankfully is rooted firmly in the constitution, unfortunately... there is no such language that clearly counters the use of AI in other aspects of law... and that concerns me. Another wild take though, is the point at which AI or an AI-based entity is considered a "person." I forget which European country it is... but they ethically considered an AI entity a person. To that extent, if you get the right Supreme Court (should it work it's way up that high), you could conceivably have a situation in the distant future where the jury is in fact "AI based."

But more immediate... what's to stop a jury from being allowed to use an AI system in the deliberation room? We have a "fair and impartial" jury... but if it can be argued that an AI system (for reasoning... lol, God help us) provides for a more fair and impartial evaluation of the facts... then it also could in effect become something that improperly sways the jury by means of actually trying to help it.
Raydar MAR 23, 09:31 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
...
The law changes as society changes.



Are you referring to the Constitution? Or just "courts" in general?
You know it takes a monumental, concerted effort to change the constitution - by design. Right?
There's a reason for that - in spite of all the "end-around" regulations, and E.O.s that "agencies and presidents" try to pass off.

It is not a "living document" as some wish.

Raydar MAR 23, 09:43 AM
To directly answer the question...
AI is a misnomer. It is not "intelligent". It does not think. At all.
All it does is compile facts. Hard facts. LOTS AND LOTS of hard facts.

But it has no "judgement", per se. It can (and will) overlook subtleties and nuances that a person can detect. (AI can't, to my knowledge, detect tone of voice, nervousness, or even sarcasm.) It seems like it would be difficult to present raw facts in a format that could be accurately judged. It also seems that it would be too easy to skew the information, to one's own purpose.

So... "No". Which doesn't mean that someone won't try.