JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on March 30, 2019, 05:55:24 PM
-
I saw this article in the news today and thought that it might be interesting to see what would happen if a mock trial was set up for LHO with an AI judge.
Another thought is that if lawyers begin to be replaced by robots, it?s just a matter of time before the human lawyers find a way to make robots illegal!
https://apple.news/A7b4-Pnw4RQe16mIVQGU9Ag
-
When computers can guide automobiles through traffic without crashes, when computers can guide airplanes, like the Boeing 737 Max 8, without crashes, both of which are seemingly straight forward problems compared to judging a trail, then I think it would be interesting to see how AI would judge certain cases, including the case against Oswald.
If the computer decided that Oswald, Booth, the Rosenberg?s and Manson were all innocent, I would take these verdicts with a grain of salt.
If AI judged the cases the same way CTers judge Oswald:
** if physical evidence could have been planted then it must be considered planted
** if suspicious actions by the defendant could be the result of the defendant following strange instructions from the CIA or some other entity to the letter
then I expect the computer would find all of the above innocent.
-
When computers can guide automobiles through traffic without crashes, when computers can guide airplanes, like the Boeing 737 Max 8, without crashes, both of which are seemingly straight forward problems compared to judging a trail, then I think it would be interesting to see how AI would judge certain cases, including the case against Oswald.
If the computer decided that Oswald, Booth, the Rosenberg?s and Manson were all innocent, I would take these verdicts with a grain of salt.
If AI judged the cases the same way CTers judge Oswald:
** if physical evidence could have been planted then it must be considered planted
** if suspicious actions by the defendant could be the result of the defendant following strange instructions from the CIA or some other entity to the letter
then I expect the computer would find all of the above innocent.
AI (or artificial intelligence) depends on initial programming and then additional input from which it ?learns.? Apparently some of it is quite sophisticated. Perhaps it does have a future in the courtroom. It should be unbiased and without human emotion. But I wouldn?t consider it to be a jury of my peers.
-
If AI judged the cases the same way CTers judge Oswald:
** if physical evidence could have been planted then it must be considered planted
** if suspicious actions by the defendant could be the result of the defendant following strange instructions from the CIA or some other entity to the letter
then I expect the computer would find all of the above innocent.
That goes both ways, Joe:
** if it was possible for Oswald to make those shots, then Oswald made those shots
** if it was possible that a single bullet made all the non lethal wounds in 2 men, then a single bullet made all the non lethal wounds in 2 men
-
When computers can guide automobiles through traffic without crashes, when computers can guide airplanes, like the Boeing 737 Max 8, without crashes, both of which are seemingly straight forward problems compared to judging a trail, then I think it would be interesting to see how AI would judge certain cases, including the case against Oswald.
If the computer decided that Oswald, Booth, the Rosenberg?s and Manson were all innocent, I would take these verdicts with a grain of salt.
If AI judged the cases the same way CTers judge Oswald:
** if physical evidence could have been planted then it must be considered planted
** if suspicious actions by the defendant could be the result of the defendant following strange instructions from the CIA or some other entity to the letter
then I expect the computer would find all of the above innocent.
Ask Siri
;)
-
I saw this article in the news today and thought that it might be interesting to see what would happen if a mock trial was set up for LHO with an AI judge.
Another thought is that if lawyers begin to be replaced by robots, it?s just a matter of time before the human lawyers find a way to make robots illegal!
https://apple.news/A7b4-Pnw4RQe16mIVQGU9Ag
As long as the adjudicating robot examined the preponderance of evidence in an honest and fair way, and with an open mind, and was programmed not to disclose any details of how it evaluated the preponderance of evidence, I don't see any problem! Thumb1:
-
As long as the adjudicating robot examined the preponderance of evidence in an honest and fair way, and with an open mind, and was programmed not to disclose any details of how it evaluated the preponderance of evidence, I don't see any problem! Thumb1:
It?s more like spell out all the evidence and conclusions in an official report that is shot and easy to read and understand. Back the report up with volumes of the details. Make it all public so everyone can argue about it for forever. And heaven forbid if anyone ever concludes anything about it, then they must be burned at the stake because they don?t want to argue the same old arguments for another 56 years.
-
It?s more like spell out all the evidence and conclusions in an official report that is shot and easy to read and understand. Back the report up with volumes of the details. Make it all public so everyone can argue about it for forever. And heaven forbid if anyone ever concludes anything about it, then they must be burned at the stake because they don?t want to argue the same old arguments for another 56 years.
Oh stop whining, Mr Collins! You keep telling us how safe the 'preponderance of evidence' is, yet refuse to enter into debate on any point of evidence. This makes your repeated smug claim to have assessed the evidence fairly, honestly and with an open mind comically unconvincing.
Have yourself a great day though! Thumb1:
-
Oh stop whining, Mr Collins! You keep telling us how safe the 'preponderance of evidence' is, yet refuse to enter into debate on any point of evidence. This makes your repeated smug claim to have assessed the evidence fairly, honestly and with an open mind comically unconvincing.
Have yourself a great day though! Thumb1:
I have not tried to convince anyone that I am right or that they are wrong. I only suggested that having an open mind is wise. And I described how it helped in my pursuits. Please do things the way you see fit for you. I don?t care which side of the fence you find yourself on. And if my suggestion of having an open mind helps anyone on either side then my purpose of posting it has been served.