Hacker News Reader

Comment by teekert | Hacker News Reader

Maybe good to realize that judge/jury system is not how it's done everywhere. For example, here in the Netherlands, there are just lawyers and a judge. There is much less emotional swaying of peers (for better or for worse) the focus is on objectivity according to the law.

No saying it's better or worse, but maybe more suited to AI assistants?

That said, I'm sure ChatGPT can make emotional appeals.

View on HN

I quite like jury trials personally, they're a good mechanism as an authentic people's check on officialdom in my opinion. A similar concept could also serve as a good check on AI by humans I think!

Already exists in those systems, there's "lay judges" who sit with the judge and have stuff explained to them.

IMO the 12 jurors thing is not ideal. Too many people, and cases can get technical.

One major flaw in jurist system is the deliberation phase where jurists argue with each other and sometimes bully / browbeat / shame one another into voting a certain way. If jurors could simply vote after hearing the case with no group dynamics, it would be more objective.

Sure, but until computers get citizenship (and maybe even then), it will be illegal to use non-algorithmic programs for decision-making, because it runs afoul of the laws that mandate that you must be able to explain how the program helped you to came to a decision (tracing the algorithm step by step) in language that your average person can understand.

Maybe the program could detail its decision process if it is sufficiently advanced

Reply on news.ycombinator.com