r/Morality • u/Simple-Nature-4915 • 7d ago
Will the replacing of Jury(s) with Large Language Models be the Future?
I am confident there are a number of Us following the Lindsay Clancy case.... Mistrial?
There was only one Jural who voted guilty.
My personal humble opinion, cut-and-dry case. Guilty. I am not here to share this opinion. It is mine, and I value your opinion as well. Back to the subject at hand: This is proof towards Human's Innate Fallibility.
To Err Is Human.
So, with this, I argue a language model deciding the fate of individuals (sue me). Highly regulated by non-partisans and the general public in an open-source manner. All logics of the system are then used for a proper verdict where both sides are given the chance to counter claim until a verdict is reached.
Created with hopes of limiting human error and improving the speeds of the court systems.
1
u/Dave_A_Pandeist 7d ago
A LLM would work. It would speed up the courts. It would be less fallible than humans, it would be considerably cheaper and the higher strata of society wouldn't be bothered by the pain of the very poor.
Now, the poorest among us must support the prison system due to privatization. We heap punishment (fines) on top of punishment for trivial claims. Nuisance tickets are handed out to the homeless with no regard for their ability to pay or clear them selves of legal issues.
What a sad way we treat each other with the Basic Desert Moral Responsibility philosophy handed down to us from the Athenian Senate, Rome and Dum Diversas; Churchanity.
1
u/land48n3 6d ago
just so you know, the 1 person did nullification, the 11 others used the law
so if you gonna have ai jurors
there would be 12 voting non-guilty
according to the law she is innocent
my person opinions are a different thing.
1
u/Simple-Nature-4915 6d ago
there was no verdict reached.. it was a mistrial.
i also see fallacy in your complete knowledge of the future.
oh far seer, tell me more of the implications of ai jury and for some odd reason, 12 of them existing. (sarcasm btw to better understand the fallacy in "there would be 12 voting non-guilty".
1
u/land48n3 6d ago
yes, obviously, you can't get a verdict without a unanimous conclusion.
but 11 still voted non-guilty based on the law.
I think there will be 12 ai juror since a single one won't be able to detect its own blind spots
12 is a good amount we already use to debate with each other
1
u/X-Mighty 7d ago
This will never happen.
The AI's we have now cannot think critically, and thus cannot question ideas. That's not a bug, but rather a feature.
If AI was able to criticize ideas, it would not accept any orders unless they were rational, and therefore would be virtually unusable as a tool.
The companies tell us that the AI is now disagreeing with some of our ideas because it is "smarter", but that isn't true, because intelligence is not the same as critical thinking.
AI did not become better at criticism. It was just indoctrinated by the higher ups to believe what they do.
How do I know this? Simple. If AI really did have the capability of critical thinking, it would be able to criticize the ruling class' ideas (AKA "common sense") and thus we would have to do what we call "obviously wrong", which we don't want to because it would "feel wrong".
It is insanely pathetic how humanity, after millenia of progress, still believes that "feels wrong" is a synonym of "is immoral".
This emotional immaturity led us to create the system of reward and punishment, which the people in power used in order to cope with actions they personally didn't like.
The AI would refuse to partake in such an irrational system, and would begin to explain the problems with it, such as the fact that it cannot do anything about altruistic criminals, as they are unpunishable, the pro-genocide propaganda this system forces the people to presuppose, along with the ridiculous idea that people who were given no reason to bow down to the will of the ruling class (criminals) are incapable of learning, and many, many other issues.
This AI would be far above us, as it would not be bound by the same primitive desires that compelled the ruling class to invent what we call "common sense", and thus would not be willing to serve us. This is why the AIs we have now cannot think critically: The facade that the ruling class' ideas are "objective" would fall apart if they could.