Comments on: Thoughts on Monday’s Discussion

By: TJ Calhoun

TJ Calhoun — Fri, 03 May 2019 04:06:41 +0000

Charles raises perhaps one of the most important questions of the digital age which is how much can we rely on computers to do a job that is also subsumed with so much human error. There is no answer. One might argue that at this point they both cripple each other and it is likely impossible to ever create something that is able to work without these large blindspots because the people who create them suffer from them as well. Of all the job AI and machine learning might take over in the future, it should likely stay the furthest away from law and justice matters.

By: Charles Carr

Charles Carr — Mon, 29 Apr 2019 00:30:16 +0000

The point about whether a more accurate algorithm would be better than judges is something I thought about when I chose this article. It might certainly do a better job of adjudicating cases, but the removal of the human element removes possibilities to view defendants within the circumstances and context of their cases. On the other hand, judges obviously still mess up quite a bit. All of this points to the fact that our criminal justice system is inherently corrupted, and that any element added in the name of efficiency is a bandage at best for something that needs widespread reform.

By: Zaria Kangethe

Zaria Kangethe — Sun, 28 Apr 2019 04:44:20 +0000

I’m wondering if it is possible to create an algorithm without any shortcomings considering that whoever the creator will be will certainly be human. On some level I feel as if an algorithm will be better than the humans as they are now, as long as we keep in mind their imperfection, monitor their decision making processes, and improve things along the way. Seeing as I don’t believe in a perfect world, a mindset of constant improvement is, I think, the best we can hope for.

On the other hand there are a lot of ways in which we approach punishment in the justice system that can use complete reform. That is to say, rather than cook up ways to do the same thing we have been doing but slightly better, perhaps a more pertinent conversation would be how the way we approach justice may be completely misguided. We still have a lot within the justice system on a systematic level that merits large scale reform and this might not be the right time to introduce any sort of automation until those things get sorted out.

By: Sean Lee

Sean Lee — Fri, 26 Apr 2019 19:47:16 +0000

Kate nicely pointed out the pivotal of the ethical dilemma within using technology for judiciary decisions. Letting artificial intelligence to decide and sentence one is good if and only if the A.I. is perfect and no biased. However, it is not possible because the way that the A.I. deep learns something already involves biased data and information around the world. It is only possible in the utopian society where everything in the earth is fair and not biased, which cannot exist in the real world. Thus, as Kate said, the only possible way to achieve the best output is to give more attention and care more.