Could computers (AI) ever replace Judges?

I give you the AI of Morrowind, currently one of the most advanced AI systems known. Here's what happened during beta:


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia entry on Morrowind 1.) One character was given a rake and the goal "rake leaves"; another was given a broom and the goal "sweep paths," and this worked smoothly. Then they swapped the items, so that the raker was given a broom and the sweeper was given the rake. In the end, one of them killed the other so he could get the proper item. 2.) In another test, a minotaur was given a task of protecting a unicorn. However, the Minotaur repeatedly tried to kill the unicorn because he was set to be an aggressive creature. 3.) In one Dark Brotherhood quest, the player can meet up with a shady merchant who sells skooma, an in-game drug. During testing, the NPC would be dead when the player got to him. The reason was that NPCs from the local skooma den were trying to get their fix, did not have any money, and so were killing the merchant to get it. 4.) While testing to confirm that the physics models for a magical item known as the "Skull of Corruption," which creates an evil copy of the character/monster it is used on, were working properly, a tester dropped the item on the ground. An NPC immediately picked it up and used it on the player character, creating a copy of him that proceeded to kill every NPC in sight. 5.) In one test, after a guard became hungry and left his post in search of food, the other guards followed to arrest him. The town people looted the town shops, due to lack of guards.

In the year 2139, an advanced AI is created. It's purpose is not to take control of the military industrial complex and subsequently turn against the humans, but rather, it's creator claims that the AI is designed to remove the human component of legal adjudication

Do you think that this is desirable, or indeed feasable? Will hundreds of Judges be collecting their dole money? What effect will this have on the adjudication process? Will it mean the death of American Realism and the proliferation of rabid formalism?

I'd especially like to see the computing & legal dudes share their thoughts on this.

No, because there would definitely be some unknown and new situation that the AI would not know how to deal with. Also, I doubt it would be able to understand the emotions and motives for victims, witnesses and criminals, all of which can have an effect on sentencing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

No, because there would definitely be some unknown and new situation that the AI would not know how to deal with. Also, I doubt it would be able to understand the emotions and motives for victims, witnesses and criminals, all of which can have an effect on sentencing.

---

First off, an AI capable of the function is a long way off. Second, you're right. It's going to be far longer before humans would be willing to put their fate, along with that of their fellow man, into the hands of something inhuman.

oh wait..

http://www.militaryfactory.com/gener...s/rumsfeld.jpg

Psychotic...meet Donald Rumsfeld. Proof I just made an error in posting that. HAHA!

no cuz AI lacks JUDGEMENT....unless it was the kinda AI arsenal gear had in MGS2...

First, that was about Oblivion. Second, Oblivion has sucky AI. Third, there is a vast difference between what we currently understand as AI and what actually constitutes intelligence.

Currently, we have computer systems which can, to an extremely high degree of accuracy and efficiency, sort through data, allocate things, and generally perform various difficult but simple tasks very well.

What they cannot do - yet - is actually think. We'll have computers with the raw power of the Human brain in another two or three decades, but actual intelligence won't exist until probably the 40s or 50s. Once we do create something which can think, a great many things become a great deal more complex.

First of all, we'll pretty much be able to call our species gods. Second, intelligent computers will be deserving of the same rights and freedoms as biological organisms are. Third, they will be able to hold exactly the same positions as we can. How and even whether we actually implement these things remains to be seen - my money is on a civil rights movement for computer intelligences occuring at some point soon after their development - but from a moral perspective sapience is all that matters. I expect a fairly strong neo-Luddism movement will emerge, however.

What we will see is judges who are augmented Humans - as pretty much the entire species will become enhanced through genetics, nanotechnology, and cybenetics. There won't, ultimately, be much if any distinction between biological Humans and computer Humans, especially as the former will be able to exist entirely in cyberspace and the latter will be able to use physical bodies in meatspace.

As to a simple algorithm, in the modern-day popular understanding of AI, I do not think we will see a situation where they are used to adjudicate legal proceedings. Even if one is created which can reasonably serve such a purpose, by the time the resistence to such is worn down, the far more powerful True AI will likely have come into existence.

even at the trial level, judges are very often asked to make decisions that while theoreticaly are based solely on "law" in fact require synthesis of many points of view in past cases with the judge's own person interpretation of justice. In fact, I would say that countries like the US, UK, and Canada that use a common law system could never have computers serve as judges because common law is by definite law that is accreted through generations of opinions in past cases rather than being specifically codified into statutes.

At the appelate level judges are asked to interpret past rulings as well as staturory laws passed by legislative bodies and those enacted by government agencies. On top of all that, judges are given the leeway to decide as a group whether a set of laws either blatantly violates the supreme law of the land (in the US this is the Constitution) or if the past precedent of laws has led us down a path that is now outmoded or ridiculous. Because this process is so subjective and leaves room for personal opinion and error, appelate judges always serve on panels of three or more that together come to opinions. I think it would be rather difficult to create scores of AI judges that would each have its own perspectives and opinions such that would allow for a chorus of voices. A simple collection of like judges that always ruled the same way would be useless unless a team of humans followed behind to reprogram the AI as necessary to reflect changing laws or to correct outlying opinions.

I don't really see how all of the effort needed would save us the time and be worth the risk and sacrifice needed to give up human adjudication.

AI are people too!

But seriously, there are so many semantics in a court case, it aint funny. I do not thing going on raw evidence is enough. There is seemed evidence in the witnesses, in the circumstance, and so much in the psycology of it all, I would find it hard to do.

Besides, why let a machine judge you?

I'm just trying to create debate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paro

I'm just trying to create debate!

---

that is what we have dumbocrats for.

Have you ever seen I-Robot? The outcome would be the same.

The computer would go insane whilst attempting to protect us, no doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainecloud

Have you ever seen I-Robot? The outcome would be the same.

The computer would go insane whilst attempting to protect us, no doubt.

---

I'm not even touching that, just going to say that the doomsaying stories of futures where computers go crazy and kill everyone has done a retarded amount of harm to AI. Already people point to I, Robot or Skynet or The Matrix as evidence that we shouldn't pursue robotics.

Fiction should always be a serious basis for non-fiction.

http://squox.co.uk/monkey_judge.jpg