Trayvon Martin Case

Fascinating discussion...I'm also interested in knowing what kind of algorithm/logic this Perfect Judge computer will use? Who writes the logic? Are we going to outsource the work?

...tell me more.

No worries saden1, the prophet RR shall preach unto you of acheivable perfection through imperfect means. The algorithm will come ... trust in science.

Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha!

<sigh> and here I thought you were intelligent enough to see the thinly veiled - but cleverly invoked - sarcasm. I'll try to be less subtle in the future.

It's interesting to me to see how people are dismissive of technology and yet completely open to superstition.

That's fascinating....

Lawyers would never allow it to happen because then they couldn't pick the dumbest people on earth to sit on a jury.

Dismissive of technology? No. A belief that it can achieve perfection in governance? Likewise, no.

Open to superstition? Where oh where is the "Captain Deflection" avatar when you need it?!
<points and laughs at RR>

I'm done. I'll be back when we are discussing the Martin case again.

RR, thanks for a wonderfully amusing extended lunch. Watching you twist your way to the conclusion that a roomfull of programers overseen by a judicial rules committee could create an omniscient machine dispensing a new and improved justice for all has been beyond amusing. Thank you.

I didn't agree with you, it's hardly the same as 'not getting it'.

Oh, boy.....


This would be funny if you were intentionally trying to amuse me. You're serious.....holy crap. Do you know what a qubit is?

Don't try to throw out quantum computing terms in hopes of making yourself look smart when you have already displayed no working knowledge in computer programming yourself, let alone simple logic.



So why are you suggesting the computer would think for itself? Hold tight, it's almost here.

How in the world did you get THAT from me saying a computer only does what it is instructed to do by the end user or the programmer? Does that even remotely suggest that I said a computer would think for itself? Seriously, are you that retarded?


That makes no sense, we wouldn't be asking them to.

Then why in the world would you be worried about the bias of the programmers?


It would if it were programmed to.

No, it would simply not.



How about a judicial committee?

Nope. According to you, that doesn't work. The judicial committee is made up of humans, therefore, the computer system would not work completely separate from any human intervention.



Therefore a computer could determine 'it'.

No, the computer does nothing more than follow a list of commands.

Lawyers would never allow it to happen because then they couldn't pick the dumbest people on earth to sit on a jury.

Damn it! Voire dire just pissed on my argument!

Why would we use one programmer? The system would be inherently flawed. We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system. Your argument is invalid.



I do not accept that as a truism, it's just your weak attempt to frame an argument I'm not making in order to weaken my argument.



Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha!

Hey asshat, try actually quoting the right person.

It's interesting to me to see how people are dismissive of technology and yet completely open to superstition.

That's fascinating....


I am not dismissive of technology at all. Give me problems which require pure data analysis and strict guidelines and I am all for it. I would love, for example, if all cars drove themselves. What I don't yet see any proof of is fuzzy logic reaching anywhere near the sophistication needed to handle ethical jurisprudence. So far all you have offered is a group of programmers guided by judicial ovesight with some adaptive logic added.

Let me ask, for clarity, are you saying that a replacement system could be made with today's technology, or are you sugesting we should, as a society, set the development of said system as a goal like the race to the moon of old.