The courts are one place where AI could actually be useful. Right now we have a system where the prosecution prunes and curates evidence to tell a story, the defense does the same, and a group of 12 people, none of who can truly be impartial because they're human, pick which story they like better.
In less than 100 years I could see it being technically possible to simply dump all the available evidence into a computer, and it would automatically exclude things that were inadmissible, analyze what remained, and give a probability that the person was guilty.
The use of AI creates a whole new set of concerns, but I can't see how that can be any worse than a system where a juror can flatly admit to something like this and nothing can be done about it.
The courts are one place where AI could actually be useful. Right now we have a system where the prosecution prunes and curates evidence to tell a story, the defense does the same, and a group of 12 people, none of who can truly be impartial because they're human, pick which story they like better.
In less than 100 years I could see it being technically possible to simply dump all the available evidence into a computer, and it would automatically exclude things that were inadmissible, analyze what remained, and give a probability that the person was guilty.
The use of AI creates a whole new set of concerns, but I can't see how that can be any worse than a system where a juror can flatly admit to something like this and nothing can be done about it.
AI could be useful, but it won't be because it will be programmed with a bias.