Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Lawyers?

   

   Anonymous of Course, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 1:34pm

   
   

   In the future there will be no courts,
   no lawyers, no judges. Your case will
   be resolved by a computer once it has
   accumulated all of the facts. Fair, and
   impartial... no wait! That will never
   happen. There would be no free politicians
   after the new justice system went on line.
   
   I'm seeing less and less of a down side to
   this and frankly I welcome our new electronic
   masters.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Abdul, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 1:39pm

   
   

   The Myspace suicide case was a typical demonstration of how technology has far outpace our legal system. As this Assistant U.S. Attorney, cybercrime prosecutor it will required a massive co-operation of the legal system to help solve these lawsuits.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Lawyers?

   

   wasnt me!, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 1:44pm

   
   

   in case you were serious.
   
   the problem with computers (even AI at least the 1st few versions) they cant deal with the "new" all rules must be pre-programed and as you can imagine with time and evolution new issues arise that machines can not deal with.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Lawyers?

   

   drkkgt, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 1:57pm

   
   

   actually the bigger problem with this thought is that it will the judges, lawyers, politicians who will decide who writes the code for the computer, how the logic is going to work, and then hand everything off to diebold (sp?) to put into a system that is hacked by another group in a day.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   AI

   

   Bengie, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 2:58pm

   
   

   "the problem with computers (even AI at least the 1st few versions) they cant deal with the "new" all rules must be pre-programed and as you can imagine with time and evolution new issues arise that machines can not deal with.
   "
   
   The human brain is nothing more than a machine with 'AI'. The only difference is that we've been programmed through evolution's geneitc algorithms. I'm sure given enough time and computational power, we can make an AI worthy of ourselves.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   inc, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 3:24pm

   
   

   don't we have enough laws? pretty soon there will just be a list of stuff you CAN do 'cause nothing else will be legal.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Sarcastic Bastard, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 4:12pm

   
   

   You could all just move to China. Then you won't have these problems. Dictatorships FTMFW!

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   I may be excessive...

   

   Greg, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 5:54pm

   
   

   I personally think that anyone developing tort for computer technologies must provide evidence of experience in the field of technology. I feel it is doubly true for the judges who hear such cases, IMO should more likely be engineers then lawyers.
   
   It may be my naivety which thinks that engineers could do better then the lawyers but it is a matter of language.
   Lawyers speak a language which is made so in part to exalt their position in society as it requires training to understand. Engineering is not understandable to anyone except engineers out of the very nature of the beast.
   
   I believe the bad laws come from either an intentional or unintentional mistranslation of these languages.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   I'm sorry Dave

   

   HAL, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 5:57pm

   
   

   I'm afraid I can't do that

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    it had to be said

    

    cc, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 6:44pm

    
    

    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
    
    and really, we weren't "intercepting" your thoughts, they were clearly "stored" in the buffer

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    Re: Re: Lawyers?

    

    Wayne, Aug 7th, 2008 @ 8:04pm

    
    

    Heh, if software requirements come from politicians, it would never be built...

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    @it had to be said

    

    Tabs, Aug 8th, 2008 @ 4:15am

    
    

    You forgot the zeroth law,
    
    0. A robot may not injure humanity or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.
    
    Danneel and Giskard would not be happy with you.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    2008 Quota Now Met

    

    Spanky Shanigens, Aug 9th, 2008 @ 9:33am

    
    

    Masnick, you've been posting like a maniac. Unfortunately now only 8 months into the year, I have filled my annual quota of "dumbass" reads.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment