RE: The Future: An Efficient Justice System Run By Artificial Intelligence
Awesome.
I've for a long time hated the idea of jury deliberation. As you say, a strong willed juror can influence others. If they can all be influenced by each other, you dampen the point of having multiple decision outputs. It's closer to just having one person. Or possibly worse since someone who is good at talking people into things might be bad at judging accurately.
I think an easy improvement that's available to us already is that each juror/judge decides on their own, with no communication at all with the others, and then they're rewarded for deciding in the majority. (Since you have no idea what the others will do, judging what seems to be true is your only strategy.)
Moving forward, you're probably right that AI can do a better job.
You could have prediction markets on Augur that trade shares on the outcome, and any time the final prediction on Augur is different than what the AI decides, you could consider that cause for a retrial, perhaps with a different AI system.
Or maybe there should be an oracle of humans (using blockchain stuff obv) who decide on the case first, and then AI systems go after that, since they aren't biased by what the humans already decided.
Another aspect of this that I'm looking forward to (when we move beyond using punishment to resolve crimes) is decentralization of how we deal with the criminals. If there's ambiguity over whether they did something, all that's really important is that everybody has access to all the info. You'd know that the oracle decided this, Augur predicted that, the AI said this. (You can watch the trial if you want.) And you can take it all for whatever it's worth to you. And others will do the same, and some type of consensus will emerge. We get there without a black and white decision issued by a central party.
This sets up sort of a kensyian beauty contest, don't you think?
I don't think so, at least it's less than what exists now.
Take an extreme example of overwhelming evidence, like it's caught on video and it's clearly the person or whatever. If they use fancy language or they're really pretty or something, you'll still know the other jurors won't be fooled by it and will realize they're guilty.
Maybe at the margins there's always the aspect of being biased towards certain people. But that's true with deliberation too.
What's important is that your motivation is always to determine what actually happened. There's really no way for you to guess when the other jurors will be biased, because that's such a nuanced and subtle thing. If you could determine that, then you're some sort of highly intelligent AI type of thing (and then so are the other jurors, and then there's no more bias because you're all so smart that you don't fall for that stuff, so you're still back to just judging what happened).
It's probably important to have some sort of mechanism to select people who are good at being jurors. But this is true anyways, with juror deliberation.
I'm not sure you understood what I was talking about. A Keynesian beauty contest means that the jurors would be judging the accused according to what they believe the other jurors believe (instead according to what they themselves believed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest
So for example, let's say you are on a jury. You personally believe the defendant is innocent. But you also think that the other 11 jurors think he is guilty. The system you're talking about (where jurors are rewarded for being on the winning side) would incentivize you to vote guilty in order to be on the winning side.
I realize youre talking about them having no contact with the other jurors, but they could still speculate. For example, if you're in a really racist state, and the defendant is black, you might not be a racist yourself, but you can assume many on the jury are. You would be incentivized to vote guilty in order to get the reward for being in a majority
That's what I thought you meant, I maybe didn't explain my answer too well.
I'm saying that judging how the other jurors might mis-judge the case is kind of like an intellectual high wire act that you can't accurately do in practice.
I think you'd be more likely to stumble over your own feet and go outside of the majority if you start speculating on how others will mis-judge certain info. (It's hard to really guess what anonymous persons' biases are.)
The extreme case where the other jurors ars likely to be racist... they'd have been racist anyways if they were allowed to deliberate. The problem is bad jurors, not the mechanism of trying to vote in the majority.
Maybe there could be some kind of appeal process, where if one person dissents (or if enough people dissent) it gets reviewed by some higher level oracle, and if they decide the one person was right, it's a very high reward for that person. So then there's some incentive to hold your ground even when you know the other jurors are biased.
I think you'd ideally have some way of determining who the best jurors are. You could use the best ones for the biggest cases, and more important as you weed out the worst ones, there's less and less people acting racistly, and less fuel for the beauty contest to happen.
At the end of the day I just cringe so hard at the idea that random people are summoned, against their will with no incentive to do it correctly. Lol. There has to be SOME glaring improvement to that. Intuitively I'm pretty confident that my method works but I'm not sure how well I made the case. Happy to field more questions.
Well said, I really like your idea on separating jurors from eachother "I think an easy improvement that's available to us already is that each juror/judge decides on their own, with no communication at all with the others" The jury should cast votes like the supreme court would and the majority wins.
I believe AI will do a better job in the long run, but I still do think we need to make many changes that would help people today. Sadly the government doesn't take fixing age old systems well.
Hehe ya, the people who profit from it now would be out of jobs if we flipped the pancake to something that actually works :p
AI justice already exists.
Just think about penalty for speed.
Camera makes a photo and send you a notification.
A huge part of justify duty is just an algorithm.
Precedence law -- human find a solution, justice system multiplies.