Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It's SCIENCE!!!

That is so f***'ing beyond excellent, I am almost speechless with laughter.

I will be laughing at that all day and into tomorrow "Kowalski"!!

[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'.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do.

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.

Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha!

[saden1]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.

Your faith in the ability of a group of flawed human programmers to overcome the flaws of a single programmer is reassuring - especially since it is a provable theory supported by extrinsic historical evidence.

All hail the imperfect beings' perfect creation.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.

[RedskinRat]

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

That's fascinating....

[firstdown]

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

[JoeRedskin]

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>

[JoeRedskin]

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.

[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 firstdown

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!

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.