we've hardly seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how this all can be applied to steering public opinion, societal control
-
-
only fantastical part of this is the system working well for the given definition of "well", inferior programs already used for bail/parole
-
woke types accuse these systems of amplifying human biases, hbd types say they reveal biases as truths. I don't think either is quite right
-
assuming reasonably well-designed system, would likely handle vast majority of cases better than average and fail spectacularly on outliers
-
this would strike most as a shocking abrogation of (the ideal of) justice, as well as put a more material fear in said outliers
-
but the way the question will be posed is, do the aggregate effects justify the collateral damage?
-
and, given the track record, I expect most will answer in the affirmative
-
Slightly more worrying: how many would answer in affirmative even if tradeoff clearly bad, if it reduces the monetary cost of the system?
-
how bout: tradeoff bad *and* more expensive but funnels pork to contractors in district and creates appearance of decisive action
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
The purpose of juries isn't to be consistent or have the best judgment, it's to make the public feel like they have ownership
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We're leaning towards a level of human oversight vaguely proportional to the consequences and need for accountability.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.