Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=skinsguy;920051]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. [/quote]

OK, so your answer should have been "no". Thanks.

[quote=skinsguy;920051]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? [/quote]

You said [i]"A computer only does what the programmer and or end user tells it to do. This is fact. A computer cannot think for itself. It must follow a list of commands."[/i] which logically means that means that you mistrust programmers or computer operators to do their job or you want computers to think for themselves (which is where things are heading). Say hello to Skynet!

[quote=skinsguy;920051]Then why in the world would you be worried about the bias of the programmers? [/quote]

I am trying to create an infallible system.

[quote=skinsguy;920051]No, it would simply not. [/quote]

Because you say not? We already have kids at home creating viruses that self correct, why not apply the same efforts to a judicial system that corrects its decisions?


[quote=skinsguy;920051]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. [/quote]

The programming and database work could become self-correcting. A Judicial committee would be useful.

[quote=skinsguy;920051]No, the computer does nothing more than follow a list of commands.[/quote]

Is that because you say so or because that's what you think? Doesn't matter. Computers can be programmed to do more than you are apparently aware of.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=skinsguy;920053]Hey asshat, try actually quoting the right person.[/quote]

Or you could just point out that I quoted the wrong person.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[B][I]Almost[/I][/B] my last post on the topic for anyone left who cares:

Google: [I]Can/Should Computers Replace Judges?, by Anthony D'Amato,* 11 Georgia Law Review 1277-1301 (1977)
[/I]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;920056]OK, so your answer should have been "no". Thanks.[/quote]

My answer was just as I stated it. And yes, I know what a qubit is.


[quote=RedskinRat;920056]You said [i]"A computer only does what the programmer and or end user tells it to do. This is fact. A computer cannot think for itself. It must follow a list of commands."[/i] which logically means that means that you mistrust programmers or computer operators to do their job or you want computers to think for themselves (which is where things are heading). Say hello to Skynet![/quote]

It means exactly the way I stated it. It doesn't need further interpretation by you.


[quote=RedskinRat;920056]I am trying to create an infallible system.[/quote]

You might want to learn how to write programs first. Might I suggest starting off with Visual Basic?<tic>



[quote=RedskinRat;920056]Because you say not? We already have kids at home creating viruses that self correct, why not apply the same efforts to a judicial system that corrects its decisions?[/quote]

Again, you're not understanding my simple statement that a computer follows a list of commands that a programmer gives it. If the computer decided "I'm not going to listen to that program anymore, I'm going to do my own thing" then the computer doing it's own thing is going to come from somebody, somewhere giving it a list of commands to do just that.



[quote=RedskinRat;920056]The programming and database work could become self-correcting. A Judicial committee would be useful.[/quote]

Yeah but the judicial committee is going to be made up of humans so there goes that theory.


[quote=RedskinRat;920056]Is that because you say so or because that's what you think? Doesn't matter. [B]Computers can be programmed[/B] to do more than you are apparently aware of.[/quote]

Re-read what I have in bold. "Computers can be programmed". You just said it yourself. Which is what I have been trying to tell you for the past couple of hours when I should be doing my work. Computers are told what to do at all times by the programs that programmers have created. You have just now agreed with me. Thank God! Oh, sorry, I mean, thank Science!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=skinsguy;920062]You might want to learn how to write programs first. Might I suggest starting off with Visual Basic?<tic>[/quote]

Most amusing. I'll stick with C++, Perl, Python etc.

[quote=skinsguy;920062]Again, you're not understanding my simple statement that a computer follows a list of commands that a programmer gives it. If the computer decided "I'm not going to listen to that program anymore, I'm going to do my own thing" then the computer doing it's own thing is going to come from somebody, somewhere giving it a list of commands to do just that. [/quote]

That has been true for most systems but now we're looking at AI becoming a reality. At what point would you declare a system sentient?

[quote=skinsguy;920062]Yeah but the judicial committee is going to be made up of humans so there goes that theory.[/quote]

Checks and balances. It improves and protects the theory, it doesn't falsify it.


[quote=skinsguy;920062]Re-read what I have in bold. "Computers can be programmed". You just said it yourself. Which is what I have been trying to tell you for the past couple of hours when I should be doing my work. Computers are told what to do at all times by the programs that programmers have created. You have just now agreed with me. Thank God! Oh, sorry, I mean, thank Science![/quote]

Oooh, quoting an incomplete sentence, how clever!

Computers currently do what they are told until such time as they stop doing so.

[URL]http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf[/URL]

[URL]http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ai_drives_final.pdf[/URL]

[url=http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/ai.html]Ethical Issues In Advanced Artificial Intelligence[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Ive never seen so many quotes in a thread before! One thing ive never been able to do is quote different sentances or points in what someone says and keep the "originally posted by warpathwinner" tag, for each and every sentance or point. Is it hard to do?

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;920068]That has been true for most systems but now we're looking at AI becoming a reality. [B]At what point would you declare a system sentient?[/b][/QUOTE]

When it hires a lawyer.

(Sorry, could not resist).

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;920072] Is it hard to do?[/quote]

No, it's not.

[QUOTE=mlmpetert;920072]Ive never seen so many quotes in a thread before! One thing ive never been able to do is quote different sentances or points in what someone says and keep the "originally posted by warpathwinner" tag, for each and every sentance or point. Is it hard to do?[/QUOTE]

Just cut and paste the original quote header ([ mlmpetert;920072 ]) before each partial quote and end it with the close quote portion. Its not hard. But if you miss a bracket or / then it gets odd looking fast

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;920074]When it hires a lawyer.

(Sorry, could not resist).[/QUOTE]

Now that was an awesome line.

Two computers are at an internet cafe

One looks at the other and says what are you having?
The other replies a cup of java and byte to eat.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;920042]It's interesting to me to see how people are dismissive of technology and yet completely open to superstition.

That's fascinating....[/quote]


We are simply trying to get the the bottom of how this Perfect Judge computer will operate. Will it have the capability of diagnosing the terminally naive? Asses mental instability? How will it call balls and strikes and will it be better at it than John Roberts?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;920080]We are simply trying to get the the bottom of how this Perfect Judge computer will operate. Will it have the capability of diagnosing the terminally naive? Asses mental instability? How will it call balls and strikes and will it be better at it than John Roberts?[/quote]

Yes, I promise it will.

[FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=1][I]<fingers_crossed>[/I][/SIZE][/FONT]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Wait, I didn't bother to read all the gibberish about computer judges? Is that right?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;920083]Wait, I didn't bother to read all the gibberish about computer judges? Is that right?[/quote]

Yes, I believe RedskinRat wants to commission the development of a Perfect Judge™ computer capable of eliminating human error in our judicial system. A highly noble endeavor though he leaves much to be desired when it comes to divulging details of the system.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;920084]Yes, I believe RedskinRat wants to commission the development of a Perfect Judge™ computer capable of eliminating human error in our judicial system. A highly noble endeavor though he leaves much to be desired when it comes to divulging details of the system.[/quote]

Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.

I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?

[QUOTE=12thMan;920088]Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.

I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?[/QUOTE]
Just plug right in and the matrix will take care of you, after all really all we are is electrical impulses flowing through water.


Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using Tapatalk 2

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;920088]Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.

I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?[/quote]

Fear not 12th, for unto us an algorithm will be created. And yea, it shall be mighty and smite down prejudice, hatred and bad calls on 4th & short. The prophet RR has foretold its coming and those that doubt his words shall be mercilessly mocked for their lack of faith in the ultimate omniscience and infallibility of science.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Coming soon to a courthouse near you.

[IMG]http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/d/dreddss.jpg[/IMG]


Never mind, this guy brings the courthouse to you! Should save on legal fees in the future.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=NC_Skins;920104]Coming soon to a courthouse near you.

[IMG]http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/d/dreddss.jpg[/IMG]


Never mind, this guy brings the courthouse to you! Should save on legal fees in the future.[/quote]I didn't know the neighborhood watch had such snazzy uniforms now.

:silly:

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.

My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?

One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory. Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Lotus;920106]Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.

My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?

One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory. Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.[/quote]

Actually, no human choice is necessary - science will solve those sticky little ethical problems for us. We simply have a representative of the various schools of ethics provide unbiased oversite to the judicial rules committee that is provideing oversite to the computer programmers creating the algorithm.

Well, I guess we should have multiple representatives from each school to cancel out the bias of any one human's bias instead -
[quote=RedskinRat;920031]We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system.[/quote]

So we have a consortium of programmers designing an algorithm that will dispense justice consistent with the oversight of judicial rules committee and a representative consortium of various consortiums of ethical scholars. ... I thought this would stop being funny, but I was wrong.

Have faith lotus. Science will save us from ourselves. Just as with Icarus, we [I]can[/I] touch the sun. Oh, wait ...

And, in the end, Trayvon Martin is still dead and a fallible jury of randomly selected humans, with all their foibles, emotions, rationality and irrationality, will adjudicate the facts and apply the law in the best way they can to decide the fate of Zimmerman.

I would have it no other way.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;920078]Just cut and paste the original quote header ([ mlmpetert;920072 ]) before each partial quote and end it with the close quote portion. Its not hard. But if you miss a bracket or / then it gets odd looking fast[/quote]


I thought that there was an easier way to do it thats embeded in the normal Quote feature that i was missing.

What Joeredskins did above when quoting 2 different people makes perfect sense. But when its the same person i dont see the need to repost there SN each and every time. Seems like overkill. Just my humble 2 cents.

Also Im against robot judges.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

If we have robot judges, I'm infecting the judge with a computer virus which will ensure my victory. Call it a cyber-bribe.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Why not just flip a coin?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Lotus;920205]If we have robot judges, I'm infecting the judge with a computer virus which will ensure my victory. Call it a cyber-bribe.[/quote]

Oh no! You've just found the kryptonite to RR's master plan to make robots rule humankind! :laughing-

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;920238]Why not just flip a coin?[/quote]

Your proposal is inheritenly flawed! Everyone knows a coin flip is a fundamentally unfair proposition!

[url=http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/the-coin-flip-a-fundamentally-unfair-proposition]The Coin Flip: A Fundamentally Unfair Proposition?[/url]

We would use a robot coin flipper designed by a consortium of engineers, that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the specs of the automatic coin flipper. Your argument is invalid.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;920248]Your proposal is inheritenly flawed! Everyone knows a coin flip is a fundamentally unfair proposition!

[url=http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/the-coin-flip-a-fundamentally-unfair-proposition]The Coin Flip: A Fundamentally Unfair Proposition?[/url]

We would use a robot coin flipper designed by a consortium of engineers, that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the specs of the automatic coin flipper. Your argument is invalid.[/quote]

All your base are belong to us!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;920248]Your proposal is inheritenly flawed! Everyone knows a coin flip is a fundamentally unfair proposition!

[url=http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/the-coin-flip-a-fundamentally-unfair-proposition]The Coin Flip: A Fundamentally Unfair Proposition?[/url]

We would use a robot coin flipper designed by a consortium of engineers, that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the specs of the automatic coin flipper. Your argument is invalid.[/quote]

:lol:

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;920251]All your base are belong to us![/quote][IMG]http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef0147e2a2c381970b-800wi[/IMG]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFfv5cnygvQ&feature=related]Coin Toss Confusion? - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Lotus;920106]Some here have maintained that ethical decisions can be expressed as mathematical equations.[/quote]

Really? Who?

[quote=Lotus;920106]My question then is, what ethical theory gets used to produce such quantification? Deontology? Bergsonian emotivism? Rawlsian theory of justice? Utiltarianism? Kantian universalism? Aristotelian virtue ethics?[/quote]

What are we using now?

[quote=Lotus;920106]One cannot talk about quantifying ethics without taking a position on ethical theory.[/quote]

You're the one introducing ethics. You may be interested in the [URL="http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4276841"]Alan Partridge Show[/URL], you remind me of a character named Simon Fisher, possibly the character was based on you?

[quote=Lotus;920106] Please tell me which theory is in play and why we should choose that mode of quantification. Or stop naively talking about quantifying ethics. One or the other will do.[/quote]

You're a little late to the discussion and in no position to set terms or make demands but as I enjoy arguing I'd suggest we use the ethics currently in place.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

^
In post 444 of this thread, YOU made the claim that ethical decisions "can very easily be made" into mathematical equations. So that answers your question of who made that claim.

My question, however, remains unanswered: which ethical theory do we use to quantify ethical decisions, as you have maintained? And why do we use that one, rather than some other?

For example, virtue ethics approve of actions which utilitarianism abhors, and vice versa. So we need a theoretical platform to stand on before any hope of quantification can occur.

You can't claim that ethics can be quantified without knowing about ethical theory. So please show your cards on this question.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I suddenly realized what this argument reminds me of:

[yt]22Tj_l4PcPs[/yt]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Lotus;920391]^
In post 444 of this thread, YOU made the claim that ethical decisions "can very easily be made" into mathematical equations. So that answers your question of who made that claim.[/quote]

[B]<SNIP>[/B]
_________________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B]JoeRedskin[/B] [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/47118-trayvon-martin-case-30.html#post919893"][IMG]http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[I]The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval.[/I]

They can very easily be made so.
_________________________________________________________

To clarify, as you're not following along, we currently have laws and we can convert a law and the breach of the law to a formula. At no point did I or anyone else mention ethics.

You're deliberately introducing a derailing topic.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Mooby, it's not even looking that well organized or articulate.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;920423][B]<SNIP>[/B]
_________________________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B]JoeRedskin[/B] [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-with-the-enemy/47118-trayvon-martin-case-30.html#post919893"][IMG]http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG][/URL]
[I]The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval.[/I]

They can very easily be made so.
_________________________________________________________

To clarify, as you're not following along, we currently have laws and we can convert a law and the breach of the law to a formula. [B]At no point did I or anyone else mention ethics.[/B]

You're deliberately introducing a derailing topic.[/quote]

Actually ethics were mentioned in several posts, including by you in at least post 444.

And talking about ethics is hardly "derailing" a discussion about how the legal system should work. Ethical principles supply foundational notions of law and justice. In fact, we can't even define the word "justice" without availing ourselves of ethical principles. So, for example, definition #1 of "justice" in the Oxford English Dictionary is "The quality of being (morally) just or righteous; the principle of just dealing; the exhibition of this quality or principle in action; just conduct; integrity, rectitude. (One of the four cardinal virtues.)."

Therefore, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you are also involved in ethics. A discussion of ethics goes right to the heart of your claims, whether you like it or not.

But you still haven't responded to my question.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Lotus;920435]Actually ethics were.......[/quote]<SNIP>

Don't care. I'm taking about taking ([I]hypothetically[/I]) the human error out of the judicial system. Replace judges and juries with a computerized adjudication system ([I]simplistically speaking[/I]).

We already have laws in place that would need to be coded in conjunction with the penalties.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;920423]To clarify, as you're not following along, we currently have laws and we can convert a law and the breach of the law to a formula. At no point did I or anyone else mention ethics.

You're deliberately introducing a derailing topic.[/quote]

A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?

Consideration of ethical behavior [I]derails[/I] a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??

Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;920446]<SNIP>

Don't care. I'm taking about taking ([I]hypothetically[/I]) the human error out of the judicial system. Replace judges and juries with a computerized adjudication system ([I]simplistically speaking[/I]).

We already have laws in place that would need to be coded in conjunction with the penalties.[/quote]

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Lotus;920449]But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?[/quote]

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.