Here I go about to contradict myself — On the one hand, I really love the Constitution. Best document ever. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s perfect.
One example: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is crucial. Is the Second Amnendment perfectly worded? I would say that it is not, which allowed some people to push about a million infringements on us, in contravention to the intent of the Constitution.
A jury of our peers? It’s a really nice idea. But that’s why OJ was found innocent. Black people on the jury were just not going to convict OJ. Can Donald Trump or his associates get a fair trial in Washington DC? Not a chance. The juries in that location will find him guilty before the trial even starts.
I think an AI jury would be superior to what the Constitution requires. With the caveat (as I stated in my first post) that a human judge should provide a second layer of judgment and if the human wants to prove that the AI system was poorly programmed and thus improperly biased, they are welcome to try.
There was a post yesterday giving an AI “answer” to a complex question.
The AI acknowledged its sources—and one of those was the Anti-Defamation League (which is itself the master of defamation).
AIs have the same problems humans do—they are only as good as their sources.
If they are programmed to blindly accept things without doing detailed research then we just get garbage like we do now.