« Texas Massacre and Gun Control (updated 11nov17) | Main | Scattershots – 10nov17 (updated 11nov17) »

08 November 2017



Max Tegmark in Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence discusses the advantages of Robojudges and the implications.

. . . it’s impossible for human judges to master all technical knowledge required for every possible case, from thorny patent disputes to murder mysteries hinging on the latest forensic science, future robojudges may have essentially unlimited memory and learning capacity. One day, such robojudges may therefore be both more efficient and fairer, by virtue of being unbiased, competent and transparent. Their efficiency makes them fairer still: by speeding up the legal process and making it harder for savvy lawyers to skew the outcome, they could make it dramatically cheaper to get justice . . . Starts at Kindle Location 1941

At Kindle location 1974-1975:

Do we want human judges to have AI-based decision support systems, just like tomorrow’s medical doctors?

Yes! I am for providing our innumeracy challenged justices an AI Decision Support System to handle their math problems, including balancing their checkbooks.


"I think it’s past time to broaden the requirements for a 21st century law degree, and also for some mandated remedial training for those who already rule how the rest of us should lead our lives."

I'd rather they follow their instincts to not jump off the deep end and accept a theory of what is an acceptable partisan gerrymandering vs. an unacceptable partisan gerrymandering based on a mathematical analysis that the court is not equipped to judge AND THAT IS NOT EXPRESSLY EMBODIED IN LEGISLATION. If Wisconsin or California wants to enshrine a mathematical test for acceptable gerrymandering, they should BUT TO DATE, THEY (WE) HAVE NOT DONE SO.

The only reference to "baloney" I could find was Roberts' statement:"... the intelligent man on the street is going to say that’s a bunch of baloney" when the SCOTUS accepts or rejects a claim, that “It must be because the Supreme Court preferred the Democrats over the Republicans. … And that is going to cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this court in the eyes of the country.”

So, no, that was not Roberts saying the approach was baloney, only that the average Joe on the street would consider a ruling by them based on these theories as baloney. And I suspect the average Joe on the street who never grokked algebra would think exactly that.

George Rebane

It is my understanding from several sources that all gerrymandering in the country has been done for some time now by machines implementing this or that algorithm. Before we have numerate judges, I believe the approach I outline relieves them of having to "accept any theory of what is an acceptable partisan gerrymandering vs. an unacceptable partisan gerrymandering based on a mathematical analysis".

I wonder who accused Roberts of saying the approach was baloney.

Todd Juvinall

The US Constitution leaves the issue of how people vote to the states. I think it would be a usurpation of the tenth if the SCOTUS tries to take that away.


"I wonder who accused Roberts of saying the approach was baloney".

George, you just threw out (it's unclear to me if it was a direct quote from 538.com) that one justice called it baloney, and the only "baloney" uttered at the court that I could find was the quote from Roberts that was not in his voice. If there was another, I'd like to see it.

Give the Toddster a cigar for his 9:49am


Russ 805pm wed, whether the gerrymanderings were by neato algorithmics or not, they are not shoved down the people's throat by the computers but generally voted upon by legislators or other native criminal classes in each state, according to state law. The idea that we should make available AI devices to lead justices and judges by the nose when the math gets above where you are comfortable is abhorrent to me. A truly wretched idea. Bad. Really and truly bad.

George Rebane

In this discussion we should not confuse the definition of the subjective utility function (that measures the goodness of a set of gerrymandered boundaries) with the algorithm that generates the boundaries which maximizes the utility function (provides a set of optimized boundaries). These are two distinct tasks, the first is based on human subjective inputs, the latter is based on some very sophisticated optimization techniques that are rendered into code. Humans cannot reasonably be expected to beat the optimization program to generate better boundaries as evaluated by their approved utility function.

Robert Cross

In context, the 10th amendment was another state's rights law designed to appease and accommodate the ownership of slaves. Like the electoral college, the 10th was designed to give equal political power to the less populated slave states so that they could prevent the federal government from passing anti-slavery legislation or voting laws that would allow abolitionists to gain public office and overturn the practice of slavery. The Constitution is riddled with antiquated features that favored slavery in the name of 'state's rights.'

Todd Juvinall

Quite the imagination there BobbieC. That is a twist I have never heard of or considered at all.


Yes, RC 924, I'm sure you see the Constitution as a relic that needs abolishment... the essence of the "Living Document" argument... that it means what you want it to say is in danger with every textualist appointed to the bench.

States do not have rights, they have powers, and the 10th restricts federal powers, no more, mo less. A good idea that the Congress used the Interstate Commerce Clause to drive around in much the same way the Panzerkampfwagens drove around the Maginot Line.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad