Trayvon Martin Case

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Computers would allow a totally unbiased legal system.

Not true. A computer does exactly what it's told, either by the end user or by the programmed instructions from the programmer. It cannot determine, on its own, such human responses as distress, nervousness, or other human responses that would determine if someone is lying or not. It just has pre-formatted outcomes based on what the programmer has placed in an array somewhere within the program. That does not necessarily prove an unbiased approach to the legal system, but does completely ignore other aspects that are considered when someone is on trial, like psychological and psychosocial issues. And those issues, are often, the bases of innocence and guilt.

More so, the programmer would have to gather his outcomes, based on prior trial activity; activity in which its outcomes were based on human determination. So the long and short of it is, you would build a legal program based on data collected by the human response and the human ability of being unbiased, since that is the only data you could gather from.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Not true. A computer does exactly what it's told, either by the end user or by the programmed instructions from the programmer.

So how does that make my statement 'not true'? It just takes unbiased programming.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

It cannot determine, on its own, such human responses as distress, nervousness, or other human responses that would determine if someone is lying or not.

A computer has a far better sense of human feedback than a human does and would be impervious to human flaws. It would also be completely impartial, in fact.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

It just has pre-formatted outcomes based on what the programmer has placed in an array somewhere within the program. That does not necessarily prove an unbiased approach to the legal system, but does completely ignore other aspects that are considered when someone is on trial, like psychological and psychosocial issues. And those issues, are often, the bases of innocence and guilt.

Or exploited by some weasel defense attorney.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

More so, the programmer would have to gather his outcomes, based on prior trial activity; activity in which its outcomes were based on human determination.

That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

So the long and short of it is, you would build a legal program based on data collected by the human response and the human ability of being unbiased, since that is the only data you could gather from.

Which over time would correct the erroneous and biased prior verdicts.

As an example of why I don't like the jury system, we have a group here (on WP) that share a common interest yet how often do we see that interest debated with polarizing views?

As previously stated, most people are too stupid to be on a jury.

[NC_Skins]

A computer would never work because the input data required by said computer would be added in by a human. Now, if you are some sort of AI program that could learn on its on and be able to decipher facts and apply it to law, we might be onto something, but let me know when that's available. Until then, we get what we get.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

A computer would never work because the input data required by said computer would be added in by a human. Now, if you are some sort of AI program that could learn on its on and be able to decipher facts and apply it to law, we might be onto something, but let me know when that's available. Until then, we get what we get.

I think you Luddites are basing your impressions of computing power on Grandma's 386.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I think you Luddites are basing your impressions of computing power on Grandma's 386.

Not hardly. Can you name me one computerized product that has zero human input?

Not saying it won't be possible, but not with current technology.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

So how does that make my statement 'not true'? It just takes unbiased programming.

Let me say this again, because I don't think you were able to grasp the concept. The programmer's only source of data to use for such a program would be prior trial outcomes, convictions or what not. Realistically, where else do you think he or she is going to get the data? A programmer is not trained to be a judge, he or she is trained to be a computer programmer; therefore, it does not matter the bias of the programmer. Law is not simply "If variable Outcomes = Array[1], then Boolean variable = True, otherwise false." Simply saying, person A shot and killed person B, therefore person A is guilty. It would be much more complicated than that, and I am afraid that you're on the borderline of thinking in fantasy world rather than realistic logic.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

A computer has a far better sense of human feedback than a human does and would be impervious to human flaws. It would also be completely impartial, in fact.

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. Please think in terms of real life, not Star Trek.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Programmers get paid to program, not to become legal judges.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Which over time would correct the erroneous and biased prior verdicts.

No. Over time, the program would continue to use the same criteria that the programmer hard coded into the system. The computer does not suddenly decide that it no longer needs criteria previously built in its arrays and decides it's going to break out on its own. Either the programmer or someone else, would have to decide that the data should be replaced by outcomes saved into new databases, which would still need the use of a human response determining what is accurate data and what is not. A computer cannot determine it, it can only determine data based on the commands it was told to perform. Nothing more and nothing less.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Let me say this again, because I don't think you were able to grasp the concept.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

The programmer's only source of data to use for such a program would be prior trial outcomes, convictions or what not.

Oh, boy......

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Realistically, where else do you think he or she is going to get the data? A programmer is not trained to be a judge, he or she is trained to be a computer programmer; therefore, it does not matter the bias of the programmer. Law is not simply "If variable Outcomes = Array[1], then Boolean variable = True, otherwise false." Simply saying, person A shot and killed person B, therefore person A is guilty. It would be much more complicated than that, and I am afraid that you're on the borderline of thinking in fantasy world rather than realistic logic.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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. Please think in terms of real life, not Star Trek.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Programmers get paid to program, not to become legal judges.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

No. Over time, the program would continue to use the same criteria that the programmer hard coded into the system. The computer does not suddenly decide that it no longer needs criteria previously built in its arrays and decides it's going to break out on its own.

It would if it were programmed to.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Either the programmer or someone else, would have to decide that the data should be replaced by outcomes saved into new databases, which would still need the use of a human response determining what is accurate data and what is not.

How about a judicial committee?

Originally Posted by skinsguy

A computer cannot determine it, it can only determine data based on the commands it was told to perform. Nothing more and nothing less.

Therefore a computer could determine 'it'.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

Oh, boy.....

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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?

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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?

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

It would if it were programmed to.

No, it would simply not.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Therefore a computer could determine 'it'.

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

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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?

You said "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." 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!

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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

I am trying to create an infallible system.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

No, it would simply not.

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?

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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

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.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

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

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

You said "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." 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!

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

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I am trying to create an infallible system.

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

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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?

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.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

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

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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-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!