Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

60% Positive

Analyzed from 571 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#system#human#humans#torment#nexus#tech#company#justice#reality#here

Discussion (12 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

poulpy123about 2 hours ago
> Sci-Fi Author: In my book I invented the Torment Nexus as a cautionary tale.

> Tech Company: At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus.

cwmooreabout 3 hours ago
There already is a parallel system of justice.

Its name is The Department of Justice.

sheepscreekabout 1 hour ago
> “It was simply the first large media company to be tested against reality in the age of clicks.”

> D’Souza is banking on everyone having forgotten that the Hulk Hogan case had nothing to do with “reality.” It was undisputed that the sex tape published by Gawker was real.

I guess the “reality” here is that our world is governed by plutocrats.

babelfishabout 1 hour ago
Why would any media company care about what Objection says or agree to arbitration?
motbus3about 2 hours ago
How can a faulty unreliable system that is easily prone to manipulation can make part of justice system?
gowldabout 2 hours ago
Always has been.
cshoresabout 5 hours ago
It will pair well with his Palantir pre-crime division.
tgroverabout 6 hours ago
the journalist trust score could be useful to limit the spread of AI generated news. Overall, a human supervisor feels like a necessity considering the weight of the decisions taken
cdrnsfabout 5 hours ago
Thiel is the last person I’d trust with any efforts related to journalism.
contingenciesabout 2 hours ago
The reservations expressed here are fair and Peter hasn't exactly distinguished himself as a holistic empathy-espousing human.

However, extra-institutional process is already a fixture in corporate law, for example arbitration. I'm dealing with a small US state-level jurisdiction at the moment and they can't even get their own rules published online (link is 'legacy.blah...' and times out) which makes placing trust in prosecution for flagrant violations impossible. I would go for arbitration through an official body but their timelines are worse and damage limits don't cover process.

As a second example, it is also a fixture in housing market law in some jurisdictions. I rented out a house here in Australia and had bad tenants who destroyed things, stole things, grew weed and stole electricity from the grid, leaving me with various damages. After a protracted 'tribunal' (local jurisdiction non-court proceeding with reduced powers and damage scope), I got nothing despite a massive weight of undisputable evidence basically because they couldn't be bothered evaluating it and there was no effective oversight.

The honest truth is I've had better, more balanced and effective judgements from Chinese courts. This shocked me.

That is to say: there is clearly a place for faster and fairer resolutions, even if just for small claims. I can see strong support for the approach in these cases. We do need appeals to humans, and we do need a limit. But it would prospectively be useful in these cases, especially if the system is designed to avoid corruption and to run isolated from the internet. You could even have a plurality of non-profits producing best-effort judges and voting. Disparate versions could be regression tested with anomalous decisions flagged for human review. That way it would be very hard to game because targeted attacks could be readily identified.

It's hard to think of a future in which humans are the most efficient means of governance. Carefully designed AI can free us of corruption, sloth, and procedural bullshit. As long as we have good oversight and transparency, from my experience as a business person across a range of jurisdictions and matters, it's hard to consider it worse than current solutions. So-called democratic representation is bullshit, and politicians know it: "Mamdani for prez!" He'll be sold out before entry - same as the others, just with a cleaner nose and cuter back-story.

If anyone wants to build an alternative to Judge Thiel, I'm in.

idiotsecantabout 1 hour ago
You're kidding yourself if you think governance by AI is somehow not magically governance by the worst kind of humans. If anything the humans can say I donno,the AI did it! When they cause the system to generate the outcome they wanted.

Tech isn't magic, you still have the same messy people problems.

contingenciesabout 1 hour ago
Having suffered repeatedly at differing implementations of people-based systems across a range of jurisdictions, I remain an optimist for a tech solution. If the system is correctly designed, it can finally reduce the people problems.

Yes, it would be easy to screw up. Yes, it's not going to fix everything because surrounding process will no doubt be human-influenced. However: no, that doesn't mean it's impossible to get value from. Especially given the shitty state of present-era systems.