• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support Supreme Court Decisions made by a super computer?

Would you support Supreme Court decisions made by a super computer?

  • Total voters
    49
Simpleχity;1066459275 said:
After an election, the digital data for electronic voting machines is converted to analogue data and printed out.

Even digital voting machines have a paper trail.
Click to expand...

Only the simple minded would believe that is an excuse not to be allowed to see the source code. The source code controls the printout. He who authored the source code is the only one that knows the reality of the printout. That is the crux of this discussion. It is a point of failure in a democracy.
 
i'd prefer districts drawn by a computer. that would help to fix a lot of other problems.
 
DaveFagan said:
Only the simple minded would believe that is an excuse not to be allowed to see the source code
Click to expand...
The software is purchased through public bids. Lol. Only a CT enthusiast would assume the source code is a classified secret.
 
Simpleχity;1066461010 said:
The software is purchased through public bids. Lol. Only a CT enthusiast would assume the source code is a classified secret.
Click to expand...

I see. Then you can surely provide a link to the Diebold software for voting machines, or not.
 
Yes, only if the criteria governing the calculation is constitutionality. Leave ideology out of it.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I was reading where if given the parameters, like entering the constitution into the computer that it could easily and properly decide the case based on the exact writing and meaning of the document. Since many feel that judges are now biased in one direction or another or that they apply the document in ways that are not actually in the words I'm curious how many would then also support removing that human error (as they see it) and support using a super computer to decide. It would use the constitution and the arguments of the parties involved. so the bottom line is:

Would you support Supreme Court decisions made by a super computer?

Yes
No
Other
Click to expand...

I fed your question into a super computer and it said "Error 304: question not recognized."
 
DaveFagan said:
I see. Then you can surely provide a link to the Diebold software for voting machines, or not.
Click to expand...
You think election officials bought digital voting machines without R&D input and trials? Right.

Get the link yourself.

In 3+ years here I've never ever seen you post even one link to support your CIA/Big Banks/Illuminati/NWO conspiracy nonsense.
 
Russell797 said:
Yes, only if the criteria governing the calculation is constitutionality. Leave ideology out of it.
Click to expand...

A computer can read the words, but can't understand them. A computer can make decisions, but doesn't understand the consequences.

Its responses would merely be a result of its programming. "Constitutionality" isn't something that can be calculated. Sometimes people calling themselves "strict constitutionalists" suggest the constitution should be taken in its plain language and not "interpreted." But that's a nonsensical concept, reading inherently involves interpretation.

I'm going to arm myself by carrying arms in my arms, to kill the bear in accordance with my right to bear arms.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I was reading where if given the parameters, like entering the constitution into the computer that it could easily and properly decide the case based on the exact writing and meaning of the document. Since many feel that judges are now biased in one direction or another or that they apply the document in ways that are not actually in the words I'm curious how many would then also support removing that human error (as they see it) and support using a super computer to decide. It would use the constitution and the arguments of the parties involved. so the bottom line is:

Would you support Supreme Court decisions made by a super computer?

Yes
No
Other
Click to expand...

Other.

Since:
  • The exact writing and meaning of the constitution is currently a matter of debate
  • The only way to be sure would be to question the original writers as to what they meant, precisely,
  • The parameters of what a supercomputer should consider a correct meaning would be defined by programmers.

This would be a meaningless exercise.

Edit: And besides, what if the resulting response is not correct for the situation, even if it's constitutionally correct?
 
This is not possible at the current time, and it is debatable if it will ever be. In order for the computer to "determine" cases, it would need to be programmed on everything. There is no such thing as a computer that thinks for itself. Someone has to code everything that it would base its "decisions" on.
 
Simpleχity;1066459275 said:
After an election, the digital data for electronic voting machines is converted to analogue data and printed out.

Even digital voting machines have a paper trail.
Click to expand...

You have an extraordinary low level of computer knowledge if you think this "proves" that the data being printed out is legit and couldn't be altered.
 
LaylaWindu said:
More details please. What do you mean checked? Simply reviewing the decision and making sure the code wasn't tampered with and the result is in fact right based on the code.
Click to expand...

Checked for decisions that would be considered way outside common sense and human expectations. How to deal with such cases would be another matter.
 
ajn678 said:
You have an extraordinary low level of computer knowledge if you think this "proves" that the data being printed out is legit and couldn't be altered.
Click to expand...
Computer knowledge is not the principle rationale. Elections are administered by local officials. America doesn’t have one monolithic national voting system the way there is in other countries. The US has thousands of them, operating under state and local supervision. More than 75 percent of Americans will vote this election on paper ballots or on voting machines with voter verifiable paper trails. That means more voters than ever will be voting on recountable, auditable systems. Every jurisdiction does pre-election testing of their voting systems that is open to the public. Every jurisdiction conducts reconciliation procedures to ensure that the number of voters who signed in to vote squares with the number of votes tallied.
 
Simpleχity;1066464579 said:
Computer knowledge is not the principle rationale. Elections are administered by local officials. America doesn’t have one monolithic national voting system the way there is in other countries. The US has thousands of them, operating under state and local supervision. More than 75 percent of Americans will vote this election on paper ballots or on voting machines with voter verifiable paper trails. That means more voters than ever will be voting on recountable, auditable systems. Every jurisdiction does pre-election testing of their voting systems that is open to the public. Every jurisdiction conducts reconciliation procedures to ensure that the number of voters who signed in to vote squares with the number of votes tallied.
Click to expand...

The point is that based on how computers work, unless you are actually there when the code is compiled and executed(you won't be) you have no idea what it actually does.
 
I for one welcome our future robotic overlords. The sooner we reach the singularity the better.
 
It can't be done.

Deciding a case is a group effort. Negotiations happen, opinions get adjusted (usually just a little). There's a bunch of things like that you can't get out of a box.

Law is an attempt to balance competing interests and rights. How a judge wants to strike that balance depends on their values, the law behind the case, possibly larger issues. What you want, and need. is judgement, not an algorithmn.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No.

First of all, the SCOTUS does not just decide grand issues of Constitutionality, it is also the final arbiter of criminal and civil law.

Aside from the fact that this would take an Artificial Intelligence as complex as Skynet to achieve (scary scary), I don't believe a calculation based on inputs reduced to binary yes/no determinations should determine how ones life or freedoms are decided.

It would require complete agreement on the parameters for the "yes/no" inputs, and then the "yes/no" chain leading to "Constitutional/Unconstitutional" ruling.

Sorry, I prefer the human factor on a case by case basis to cold calculation.
Click to expand...

Yes ! - Even a simple computer program would be better than the current crop of clowns. ... and I mean all of them should be fired for dereliction of duty.

None exhibits any clue on what "Limited Gov't" is all about or the principles on which the constitution is supposed to be interpreted or laws of this country made.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I was reading where if given the parameters, like entering the constitution into the computer that it could easily and properly decide the case based on the exact writing and meaning of the document. Since many feel that judges are now biased in one direction or another or that they apply the document in ways that are not actually in the words I'm curious how many would then also support removing that human error (as they see it) and support using a super computer to decide. It would use the constitution and the arguments of the parties involved. so the bottom line is:

Would you support Supreme Court decisions made by a super computer?

Yes
No
Other
Click to expand...

Whoever said that doesn't understand what the Supreme Court does.
 
LaylaWindu said:
I was reading where if given the parameters, like entering the constitution into the computer that it could easily and properly decide the case based on the exact writing and meaning of the document. Since many feel that judges are now biased in one direction or another or that they apply the document in ways that are not actually in the words I'm curious how many would then also support removing that human error (as they see it) and support using a super computer to decide. It would use the constitution and the arguments of the parties involved. so the bottom line is:

Would you support Supreme Court decisions made by a super computer?

Yes
No
Other
Click to expand...

not only no but HELLLLLLL no lol
 
joG said:
Checked for decisions that would be considered way outside common sense and human expectations. How to deal with such cases would be another matter.
Click to expand...

But why would that ever happen if simply going but what the constitution says?
 
LaylaWindu said:
But why would that ever happen if simply going but what the constitution says?
Click to expand...

We re quite a way from triviality in these things. Take any pair of Amendments and you will find that there is a trade-off of rights to be considered. Each case will have different trade-offs. Now, while an AI program would learn how we want these trade-offs to be evaluated and made, the cases are often fraught with "human" aspects that we consider important. The baker would never have been convicted by the computer.
 
joG said:
We re quite a way from triviality in these things. Take any pair of Amendments and you will find that there is a trade-off of rights to be considered. Each case will have different trade-offs. Now, while an AI program would learn how we want these trade-offs to be evaluated and made, the cases are often fraught with "human" aspects that we consider important. The baker would never have been convicted by the computer.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying decisions should NOT be based on the actual words of the constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom