General Interest > Tacitus' Realm
IBM's new foretelling software to be used by Florida DOC
Froderik:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "Froderik" ---Wow this really has gone on long enough..don't you all think.
I can't even bring myself to read the last two posts..
The idea of "foretelling software" is repulsive to me, as is anyone who would entertain an idea like this for more than a nanosecond.
Sometimes it's good to let threads like this one die; it hardly seems worth the effort...I'm sure there is more important news to talk about..
--- End quote ---
The "I just" thread has been going for a long time now. There is tons of reading and maybe that would be more interesting for you.
...
--- End quote ---
I'd probably learn more on that thread, you're right.
Froderik:
--- Quote from: "DannyB II" ---
--- Quote from: "Froderik" ---Sometimes it's amazing how people don't give a shit about liberty.
The whole idea of "foretelling software" borders on the absurd..
WTF is this world coming to???
--- End quote ---
:shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock:
What is amazing is I am listening to rational, educated adults say it is crazy not to try and find a way to stop 80,000 youth offenders from taking your civil liberties away (speaking in general) when they commit a crime.
Froderik what do you want Florida to do ???????????? or for that matter any other state.
--- End quote ---
I don't know.....abide by the Constitution?
psy:
--- Quote from: "Whooter" ---
--- Quote from: "psy" ---I see what you're arguing, Whooter... That this system will result in fewer and more appropriate program placements. Maybe, Maybe not. But the fact remains that these kids are being sentenced not on what they have done, but what they are likely do do in the future (according to the computer based on god knows who's programming and data). England is using it on adults, apparently. I don't care what a computer says is the most likely outcome. While punishment is certainly appropriate if the kids have caused harm to others, changing a person's way of thinking against one's will is unethical. Using the system you propose, justice would possibly be more practical, but it would also be a lot less fair.
Whooter, would you support a system where criminals were implanted with computer chips in their brain removing their free will but creating productive members of society? It sounds sci-fy but I'm going somewhere. Answer the question.
--- End quote ---
I would never support someone losing their free will for any reason.
--- End quote ---
OK, Whooter, but what if the computer predicted that the person, because of his circumstances or whatever data, was a violent killer likely to go out and murder somebody. Say the chance was 95%. Say the person was arrested for punching a guy. Should he be sentenced for the crime of assault, or sent away for longer to potentially save a life? Let's assume for the purposes of this hypothetical that the computer is indeed accurate and there is a high likelihood the person in question would commit such a crime.
In such a circumstance, would you support such a device removing a person's free will? What if the predicted chance was 99%. What if the crime had already been committed?
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "psy" ---OK, Whooter, but what if the computer predicted that the person, because of his circumstances or whatever data, was a violent killer likely to go out and murder somebody. Say the chance was 95%. Say the person was arrested for punching a guy. Should he be sentenced for the crime of assault, or sent away for longer to potentially save a life? Let's assume for the purposes of this hypothetical that the computer is indeed accurate and there is a high likelihood the person in question would commit such a crime.
In such a circumstance, would you support such a device removing a person's free will? What if the predicted chance was 99%. What if the crime had already been committed?
--- End quote ---
I feel that this person should be talked to and they should assess the risk. A therapist should evaluate this man to determine if anything could be done to avert a murder. But he should not be arrested for a crime he did not commit. If he is found to be unstable then he should be treated for that condition.
It’s a sticky situation, though, think about it. If a person sends an email to a friend saying he is armed and heading to the library to shoot everyone who is there. Should the cops shoot this guy on site? Should they try to detain him? Should he be charged with attempted murder if they catch him on the road?
Its possible that this guy might have entered the library and aimed his weapon at people and decided that he just couldn’t do it. Maybe he would then put his weapon away and go home and there would be no crime. So the friend who received the email should not call the police to begin with because no crime has been committed yet?
...
DannyB II:
:shamrock: :shamrock:
I am curious, why are we going way out there with wild speculation as to how IBM will use this system. Is this massaging your ego in so far as satisfying your need pys, to advocate against anything that will eliminate self will for people. If that is the case I guess it is fine but I thought there was enough real information in the article to have a rational debate, seems were digging for whatever conversation we can have now.
I happen to agree with froderik this post has lost the appeal it could have had.
Danny
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version