Countries will weaponize everything they can — and use it against an adversary, whenever suitable. Those who wouldn't, have lost the evolution race countless generations ago.
Did you know, that a crossbow was once believed to be so horrible a weapon, a movement was afoot to ban its use in Europe against fellow Christians?
Like, yeah, I'm gonna just let him kill me, but will not shoot him with this loaded weapon I have here, because he is a Christian like myself?
Hillary Clinton was a government employee (as she's always been, as a matter of fact), when she did her part. Being a government official is no guarantee — you are just much harder to fire over it...
How is such technology different — in principle — from doormen? They too would look at everyone and remember — to the best of their ability — who walked in and out, and when?
Anything "sanctuary" — for people breaking a Federal law — is in itself a Federal crime:
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
Providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants is a crime. Doubting federally-employed scientists is not.
I've always held, that the loser of legal proceedings ought to automatically be on the hook for the winner's legal fees. That would allow innocent people to finance their legal defenses without the prospect of going broke even upon prevailing.
And my point from the beginning was, that I don't see a need for correction. You keep asserting there being some "studies" showing the AI being "biased", but would not provide links (nor would TFA).
And then, even it were biased, it has to be biased worse than humans working in the legal system, whose influence on the outcomes the AI would dilute.
Sure. Nobody — and nothing — is perfect, and so everybody — and everything — needs correction. I'm glad, I was able to change your mind from the earlier: "Turn it off so we don't throw good money after bad.".
a study of it's decisions suggests a significant racial bias in it's training set
You (and TFA) both make these claims of racial bias, without citing actual evidence... What "study" has shown, that a) an AI used by the judges is racially biased; b) its bias is greater than that of humans?
But even if we were to stipulate, that this is true, the AI is not making the decision. The final decision is still made by the fair-minded judge...
That's a beautiful rant and it is, indeed, an outrage how federal agents of various Agencies pressure people into "confessing" by threatening them with financial ruin of the trial.
I still don't see, what exactly is "broken". AI can make mistakes? Sure — but AI does not issue verdicts, human judges do...
That we have higher prison populations than other countries? Maybe, that's the sign of efficiency of our prosecutors (combined with the near-moratorium on death-sentences)? The "yellow jackets" in France have been marauding and burning for how long now, for example? I doubt, such blatant asshollery would've been tolerated in the US for that long.
Darling, mine weren't "strawmen" arguments. You attempted to defend the disastrous performance of public schools by saying "charter schools are worse". That's it — this was your sole argument.
Which was completely null and void not only because you could not decisively substantiate it — which inability would've still left room for it being true, just unsubstantiated — but because charter schools are also government run institutions and their failings, if any, only reaffirm my point about the disastrous performance of public schools.
Again, this was your only argument, and it was as silly one as it could possibly get. You lost and, given your propensity to attack the opponent's person, I'm entitled to as much gloating as a "win" over a low-life Commie like yourself deserves.
You're not hurting the head makeup artist, the best boy or the gaffer.
Of course, you do hurt them all. Their jobs depend on their employer's being able to sell the fruits of their labors — and profiting from it. Diminishing the profit diminishes the pay. For everyone.
You are hurting the media megacorp
So theft is Ok, if you really hate the victim? How about rape? Is it Ok to rape a CEO of a "megacorp who's [sic] trickle-down model is a ripoff for everyone"? How about murder? No? Why not?
One immediate step a country could take is to treat them with increased suspicion, which in the US is both against the laws and the morals — targeting expats from a particular country is denounced (and even prosecuted) as "racial profiling" — a trait Chinese society itself does not poses.
Until we overcome this weakness against Chinese — the way we are overcoming it with the Russians, for example, our highest-tech research will remain at risk.
If he hasn't been able to stop investigations against his allies and trigger them against his enemies it's not for lack of trying.
You are confirming my point — he does not dare to even pardon his friends, which is his legal prerogative. Much less can he order anyone locked up, just as I said.
A President is saying "I'm planning to use this prisoner as leverage in a trade war". How is that not political?
It is political, but the politics are foreign, not domestic. For the test to pass, it has to be domestic politics.
The way you are trying to interpret it, every prosecution is political — if the prosecutor is (or may be) eyeing running for an office, as so many do.
which is over global warming which we know to be anthropogenic
Nothing a Tasmanian shaman wouldn't claim, when trying to explain the rising seas turning the peninsula into an island: "Bring me the offerings so I can pray to the spirits to spare what's left of our land! And kill the deniers!"
There is no way to put a good spin on this colossal failure of government — which is why those "journalists" you respect so much have never pointed it out to you — and you blundered into this debate not knowing the facts. Disarmed by actual facts and logic, you've been reduced to attacking the opponent's person — a sure sign of an argument lost...
[...] reduced funding and social ills that fall heavily on the community
Which part of four-fold increase are you calling reduced funding?
You attempted to explain this away by pointing out — without evidence — that "charter schools" are worse. Clearly unaware, that "charter schools" are also government-controlled.
that article has clear citations, not anecdotes
That article cites anecdotes — about "charter" schools, which are also government-controlled.
There is no way anyone — even you — would willingly agree to pay 4 times more for the bad service. The only way this situation can persist is because government forces us (at the implicit gun-point of the tax-collector) to keep paying for it.
Of course, you — a Statist — love this and want the same to spread into other aspects of life, such as Internet-service provision. It is both Illiberal and counter-productive — I know you like it, but the rest of us do not.
Well, if you don't want to follow the money, it will remain "beyond you".
That's not an explanation. But, hey, if you have any problem with the US government, "look to the voters. They put 'em there".
If you have a problem with congress, look to the voters.
Yes, I have a problem with Congress of the 1930ies, which was when the body ceded some of its own law-making powers to the Executive branch (headed by the Statist dictator) by creating FCC.
A federal government's commission advised the states to write laws in a certain way. How does that translate into "corporations are writing the laws" — even if we stipulate that the commission itself is under corporations' control — is beyond me...
it's not the government's fault.
To this Libertarian, it is the government's fault is that the FCC even exists — the sheep in Congress have ceded too much power to America's first Statist dictator (FDR).
Slashdot Mirror
Countries will weaponize everything they can — and use it against an adversary, whenever suitable. Those who wouldn't, have lost the evolution race countless generations ago.
Did you know, that a crossbow was once believed to be so horrible a weapon, a movement was afoot to ban its use in Europe against fellow Christians?
Like, yeah, I'm gonna just let him kill me, but will not shoot him with this loaded weapon I have here, because he is a Christian like myself?
Hillary Clinton was a government employee (as she's always been, as a matter of fact), when she did her part. Being a government official is no guarantee — you are just much harder to fire over it...
How is such technology different — in principle — from doormen? They too would look at everyone and remember — to the best of their ability — who walked in and out, and when?
With Mueller failing to deliver any damage to the President, his haters need new stuff to throw — in the hope, something will stick...
Anything "sanctuary" — for people breaking a Federal law — is in itself a Federal crime:
Providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants is a crime. Doubting federally-employed scientists is not.
I've always held, that the loser of legal proceedings ought to automatically be on the hook for the winner's legal fees. That would allow innocent people to finance their legal defenses without the prospect of going broke even upon prevailing.
And my point from the beginning was, that I don't see a need for correction. You keep asserting there being some "studies" showing the AI being "biased", but would not provide links (nor would TFA).
And then, even it were biased, it has to be biased worse than humans working in the legal system, whose influence on the outcomes the AI would dilute.
From astoturfer's reference to "federal gulag".
Sure. Nobody — and nothing — is perfect, and so everybody — and everything — needs correction. I'm glad, I was able to change your mind from the earlier: "Turn it off so we don't throw good money after bad.".
You (and TFA) both make these claims of racial bias, without citing actual evidence... What "study" has shown, that a) an AI used by the judges is racially biased; b) its bias is greater than that of humans?
But even if we were to stipulate, that this is true, the AI is not making the decision. The final decision is still made by the fair-minded judge...
That's a beautiful rant and it is, indeed, an outrage how federal agents of various Agencies pressure people into "confessing" by threatening them with financial ruin of the trial.
But it is irrelevant to the topic, because the entire federal prison population is a tiny slice of the total. Less than 10%, in fact.
No, we haven't. Stalin killed tens of millions...
You seem to insist on things being either perfect or unusable — an obvious case of a well-known fallacy.
The "racial bias in sentencing" — if any such exist — is irrelevant, because the AI is not doing the sentencing.
I still don't see, what exactly is "broken". AI can make mistakes? Sure — but AI does not issue verdicts, human judges do...
That we have higher prison populations than other countries? Maybe, that's the sign of efficiency of our prosecutors (combined with the near-moratorium on death-sentences)? The "yellow jackets" in France have been marauding and burning for how long now, for example? I doubt, such blatant asshollery would've been tolerated in the US for that long.
Darling, mine weren't "strawmen" arguments. You attempted to defend the disastrous performance of public schools by saying "charter schools are worse". That's it — this was your sole argument.
Which was completely null and void not only because you could not decisively substantiate it — which inability would've still left room for it being true, just unsubstantiated — but because charter schools are also government run institutions and their failings, if any, only reaffirm my point about the disastrous performance of public schools.
Again, this was your only argument, and it was as silly one as it could possibly get. You lost and, given your propensity to attack the opponent's person, I'm entitled to as much gloating as a "win" over a low-life Commie like yourself deserves.
All foreign-born are suspect, but expats from hostile countries (which Israel is not) are especially so. And China is in a special class all its own.
This article offers some insights.
But, but they had no criminal intent!! So no reasonable prosecutor should ever go after them!
Of course, you do hurt them all. Their jobs depend on their employer's being able to sell the fruits of their labors — and profiting from it. Diminishing the profit diminishes the pay. For everyone.
So theft is Ok, if you really hate the victim? How about rape? Is it Ok to rape a CEO of a "megacorp who's [sic] trickle-down model is a ripoff for everyone"? How about murder? No? Why not?
It is a well-known fact, that ethnic Chinese abroad spy for China en-masse. Some willingly, some — under coercion.
One immediate step a country could take is to treat them with increased suspicion, which in the US is both against the laws and the morals — targeting expats from a particular country is denounced (and even prosecuted) as "racial profiling" — a trait Chinese society itself does not poses.
Until we overcome this weakness against Chinese — the way we are overcoming it with the Russians, for example, our highest-tech research will remain at risk.
You are confirming my point — he does not dare to even pardon his friends, which is his legal prerogative. Much less can he order anyone locked up, just as I said.
It is political, but the politics are foreign, not domestic. For the test to pass, it has to be domestic politics.
The way you are trying to interpret it, every prosecution is political — if the prosecutor is (or may be) eyeing running for an office, as so many do.
Extradition of a Chinese citizen to the US "connected with political control" of the US? Ok...
Nothing a Tasmanian shaman wouldn't claim, when trying to explain the rising seas turning the peninsula into an island: "Bring me the offerings so I can pray to the spirits to spare what's left of our land! And kill the deniers!"
Exactly the point I was making, thank you!
They are Communists, I know you like that.
The vast majority — 65% — of kids aren't proficient in reading by age 15, despite per-pupil spending increasing four-fold since 1960ies. Not in "troubled districts" — the 65% is a national average.
There is no way to put a good spin on this colossal failure of government — which is why those "journalists" you respect so much have never pointed it out to you — and you blundered into this debate not knowing the facts. Disarmed by actual facts and logic, you've been reduced to attacking the opponent's person — a sure sign of an argument lost...
Which part of four-fold increase are you calling reduced funding?
You attempted to explain this away by pointing out — without evidence — that "charter schools" are worse. Clearly unaware, that "charter schools" are also government-controlled.
That article cites anecdotes — about "charter" schools, which are also government-controlled.
There is no way anyone — even you — would willingly agree to pay 4 times more for the bad service. The only way this situation can persist is because government forces us (at the implicit gun-point of the tax-collector) to keep paying for it.
Of course, you — a Statist — love this and want the same to spread into other aspects of life, such as Internet-service provision. It is both Illiberal and counter-productive — I know you like it, but the rest of us do not.
That's not an explanation. But, hey, if you have any problem with the US government, "look to the voters. They put 'em there".
Yes, I have a problem with Congress of the 1930ies, which was when the body ceded some of its own law-making powers to the Executive branch (headed by the Statist dictator) by creating FCC.
A federal government's commission advised the states to write laws in a certain way. How does that translate into "corporations are writing the laws" — even if we stipulate that the commission itself is under corporations' control — is beyond me...
To this Libertarian, it is the government's fault is that the FCC even exists — the sheep in Congress have ceded too much power to America's first Statist dictator (FDR).
Rule n+1st: never reply until you've read the entire thread.