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:
the problem with artificial intelligence today is that it is rarely able to explain why it came to the conclusion it did.
You get an outcome and a confidence.
"78% sure this lawyers argument is inline with the constitution"
Then you get into adversarial intelligence that actively tries to exploit the source AI to trick it into the desired outcome but hiding in that 22% lack of confidence the system can't explain.
Then you have a technology arms race.
Absolutely rather have a person that can explain the opinion and how they arrived at it.
This article explains how AI decisions can be 100% explainable: https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/f9kuryi8/release/6
no it doesn't, it just says that one team made a model where it extracts a the weights of the neurons.
That's like a robot telling you that the LA Lakers are going to win because their Small Forward is 6'9" and the neuron said 6'9" SF is a huge indicator of success.
The author had the nerve to compare this type of visibility into the neuron weights as on-par with talking to a skilled surgeon. Total BS by a bunch of really dumb smart people.