Also, other courts. Judges not needed if you get rid of precedent (legislating from the bench) and "interpreting the law" (legislating from bench). AI would judge based on the intent of the law, not what some judge says it is. Judges have usurped power from the people for far too long.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
Wont work. I work with state of the art AI on the theoretical side, developing testing strategies. A proper explanation of the problems with AI would require some very heavy duty math, some that very few people know and some that I might be the only person who knows. I don't mean to brag, but I am a math prodigy. I have developed a new math theory specifically for testing AI. I started this in 1980.
Have you seen this article on clarity in AI's: https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/f9kuryi8/release/6
Yes. It was a while ago. The authors are spot on. I'm striving for mathematical provablity of computational systems. I'm using topology and category theory. It's hard to explain but because of a whole set of erroneous theory, AI systems (and softwares in general) are far more complicated then needed. Are you familiar with the work of Kurt Gödel?