Trayvon Martin Case

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

OK, so your answer should have been "no". Thanks.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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?

You said "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." which logically means that means that you mistrust programmers or computer operators to do their job or you want computers to think for themselves (which is where things are heading). Say hello to Skynet!

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Then why in the world would you be worried about the bias of the programmers?

I am trying to create an infallible system.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

No, it would simply not.

Because you say not? We already have kids at home creating viruses that self correct, why not apply the same efforts to a judicial system that corrects its decisions?

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

The programming and database work could become self-correcting. A Judicial committee would be useful.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

No, the computer does nothing more than follow a list of commands.

Is that because you say so or because that's what you think? Doesn't matter. Computers can be programmed to do more than you are apparently aware of.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Hey asshat, try actually quoting the right person.

Or you could just point out that I quoted the wrong person.

[RedskinRat]

Almost my last post on the topic for anyone left who cares:

Google: Can/Should Computers Replace Judges?, by Anthony D'Amato,* 11 Georgia Law Review 1277-1301 (1977)

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

OK, so your answer should have been "no". Thanks.

My answer was just as I stated it. And yes, I know what a qubit is.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

You said "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." which logically means that means that you mistrust programmers or computer operators to do their job or you want computers to think for themselves (which is where things are heading). Say hello to Skynet!

It means exactly the way I stated it. It doesn't need further interpretation by you.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I am trying to create an infallible system.

You might want to learn how to write programs first. Might I suggest starting off with Visual Basic?<tic>

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Because you say not? We already have kids at home creating viruses that self correct, why not apply the same efforts to a judicial system that corrects its decisions?

Again, you're not understanding my simple statement that a computer follows a list of commands that a programmer gives it. If the computer decided "I'm not going to listen to that program anymore, I'm going to do my own thing" then the computer doing it's own thing is going to come from somebody, somewhere giving it a list of commands to do just that.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

The programming and database work could become self-correcting. A Judicial committee would be useful.

Yeah but the judicial committee is going to be made up of humans so there goes that theory.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Is that because you say so or because that's what you think? Doesn't matter. Computers can be programmed to do more than you are apparently aware of.

Re-read what I have in bold. "Computers can be programmed". You just said it yourself. Which is what I have been trying to tell you for the past couple of hours when I should be doing my work. Computers are told what to do at all times by the programs that programmers have created. You have just now agreed with me. Thank God! Oh, sorry, I mean, thank Science!

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

You might want to learn how to write programs first. Might I suggest starting off with Visual Basic?<tic>

Most amusing. I'll stick with C++, Perl, Python etc.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Again, you're not understanding my simple statement that a computer follows a list of commands that a programmer gives it. If the computer decided "I'm not going to listen to that program anymore, I'm going to do my own thing" then the computer doing it's own thing is going to come from somebody, somewhere giving it a list of commands to do just that.

That has been true for most systems but now we're looking at AI becoming a reality. At what point would you declare a system sentient?

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Yeah but the judicial committee is going to be made up of humans so there goes that theory.

Checks and balances. It improves and protects the theory, it doesn't falsify it.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Re-read what I have in bold. "Computers can be programmed". You just said it yourself. Which is what I have been trying to tell you for the past couple of hours when I should be doing my work. Computers are told what to do at all times by the programs that programmers have created. You have just now agreed with me. Thank God! Oh, sorry, I mean, thank Science!

Oooh, quoting an incomplete sentence, how clever!

Computers currently do what they are told until such time as they stop doing so.

http://singinst.org/upload/artificia...gence-risk.pdf

http://selfawaresystems.files.wordpr...ives_final.pdf

Ethical Issues In Advanced Artificial Intelligence

[mlmpetert]

Ive never seen so many quotes in a thread before! One thing ive never been able to do is quote different sentances or points in what someone says and keep the "originally posted by warpathwinner" tag, for each and every sentance or point. Is it hard to do?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That has been true for most systems but now we're looking at AI becoming a reality. At what point would you declare a system sentient?

When it hires a lawyer.

(Sorry, could not resist).

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Is it hard to do?

No, it's not.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Ive never seen so many quotes in a thread before! One thing ive never been able to do is quote different sentances or points in what someone says and keep the "originally posted by warpathwinner" tag, for each and every sentance or point. Is it hard to do?

Just cut and paste the original quote header ([ mlmpetert;920072 ]) before each partial quote and end it with the close quote portion. Its not hard. But if you miss a bracket or / then it gets odd looking fast

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

When it hires a lawyer.

(Sorry, could not resist).

Now that was an awesome line.

Two computers are at an internet cafe

One looks at the other and says what are you having?
The other replies a cup of java and byte to eat.

[saden1]

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....

We are simply trying to get the the bottom of how this Perfect Judge computer will operate. Will it have the capability of diagnosing the terminally naive? Asses mental instability? How will it call balls and strikes and will it be better at it than John Roberts?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by saden1

We are simply trying to get the the bottom of how this Perfect Judge computer will operate. Will it have the capability of diagnosing the terminally naive? Asses mental instability? How will it call balls and strikes and will it be better at it than John Roberts?

Yes, I promise it will.

<fingers_crossed>

[12thMan]

Wait, I didn't bother to read all the gibberish about computer judges? Is that right?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Wait, I didn't bother to read all the gibberish about computer judges? Is that right?

Yes, I believe RedskinRat wants to commission the development of a Perfect Judge™ computer capable of eliminating human error in our judicial system. A highly noble endeavor though he leaves much to be desired when it comes to divulging details of the system.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Yes, I believe RedskinRat wants to commission the development of a Perfect Judge™ computer capable of eliminating human error in our judicial system. A highly noble endeavor though he leaves much to be desired when it comes to divulging details of the system.

Wow...I don't even know where to start on that one. That's deep rabbit hole.

I mean, we go down that road. Electronic priests, electronic refs, coaches, cops, clerks. You feelin me?