As a smart and tech savvy community; If you found yourself in a bad place with a client/employer/vendor would you choose a AI arbitrator over a human one?
AI as a Judge
- Thread starter Duckpaddle
- Start date
- Watchers 3
-
Be sure to checkout “Tips & Tricks” Dear Guest Visitor → Once you register and log-in please checkout the “Tips & Tricks” page for some very handy tips!
/Steve. -
BootAble – FreeDOS boot testing freeware
To obtain direct, low-level access to a system's mass storage drives, SpinRite runs under a GRC-customized version of FreeDOS which has been modified to add compatibility with all file systems. In order to run SpinRite it must first be possible to boot FreeDOS.
GRC's “BootAble” freeware allows anyone to easily create BIOS-bootable media in order to workout and confirm the details of getting a machine to boot FreeDOS through a BIOS. Once the means of doing that has been determined, the media created by SpinRite can be booted and run in the same way.
The participants here, who have taken the time to share their knowledge and experience, their successes and some frustrations with booting their computers into FreeDOS, have created a valuable knowledgebase which will benefit everyone who follows.
You may click on the image to the right to obtain your own copy of BootAble. Then use the knowledge and experience documented here to boot your computer(s) into FreeDOS. And please do not hesitate to ask questions – nowhere else can better answers be found.
(You may permanently close this reminder with the 'X' in the upper right.)
You might think an AI would be unbiased, but I think things like the failings of facial recognition (in the past anyway) on black faces proves that idea out. Accordingly, for now, I think I'd take my luck with a human.
Interesting question. But I might muddy the water a bit by asking, whose AI, or which AI? Just as I might ask, which human?
Also, I started from the assumption that I would be the one in the right in this scenario. But what if I know I'm in the wrong and want to get off with the lightest punishment possible?
I think your scenario is coming, if not here already. For now, I'm going to weasel out and say, it would depend.
Also, I started from the assumption that I would be the one in the right in this scenario. But what if I know I'm in the wrong and want to get off with the lightest punishment possible?
I think your scenario is coming, if not here already. For now, I'm going to weasel out and say, it would depend.
Just for the sake of discussion, i.e. isolating variables, Let's just assume neither litigant has enough clout to influence the AI, or the human arbitrator. Just focusing on the questions of loss of "humanity" in the judge for the AI and the loss of bias in the human. Would that be a good thing, do we really want an unbiased judge? Or would this be the proverbial "nose under the tent" of surrender to AI overloads.
Gotta go with the human judge, in that case. At present, I still believe that Steve was correct when he called AI a "clever regurgitator". While an AI could be trained on every statute, every precedent in all human history, I don't believe it is (for now) capable of reason (not too broadly defined). Again referring to what Steve said recently, "So one thing that occurs to me ... is that none of the AIs I've ever interacted with has ever asked for any clarification about what I'm asking." (SN 1001) Seems like something an adjudicator might want to do from time to time.
Steve and you make a good point. In my experiments, I've had to force feed more facts which like any human are often ignored, after an empty AI apology.
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
