Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

AI is only able to keep performing as it has learned from the data set. In other words, it keeps the status quo within a few percent of an intended target. Unless given the clear go ahead to just keep learning, at which point they seem to fail at random

I was thinking the same thing.

Why should it stop when it has the potential to be much more efficient? Just give it sufficient oversight, and I'm fine with this.

If the judge loses in hand-to-hand combat.

> These algorithmic outputs inform decisions about bail, sentencing, and parole. Each tool aspires to improve on the accuracy of human decision-making that allows for a better allocation of finite resources.

It's really not clear to me that much is gained from having very precise decisions made about bail and sentencing. Trying to predict the future is a fool's errand, whether a judge does it or a computer. It'd be better to just set fair, uniform standards (particularly for bail where bail should be granted presumptively unless unique circumstances are present).

Unfortunately, using machine learning for sentencing is just the tip of the iceberg. "Scientism" is rife in the criminal justice system. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, for example, are utter gibberish. Sentences are calculated to the month using complex formulas: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2016-guidelines-manual/2016-c....

> The total points from subsections (a) through (e) determine the criminal history category in the Sentencing Table in Chapter Five, Part A.

> (a) Add 3 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month.

> (b) Add 2 points for each prior sentence of imprisonment of at least sixty days not counted in (a).

> (c) Add 1 point for each prior sentence not counted in (a) or (b), up to a total of 4 points for this subsection.

> (d) Add 2 points if the defendant committed the instant offense while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status.

> (e) Add 1 point for each prior sentence resulting from a conviction of a crime of violence that did not receive any points under (a), (b), or (c) above because such sentence was treated as a single sentence, up to a total of 3 points for this subsection.

But it's not like this is based on an empirical statistical model correlating sentences with recidivism or deterrence effects. It's classic scientism, believing that an algorithmic sentence based on completely arbitrary rules is somehow better than an arbitrary sentence handed out by human judgment.

When it shows less bias than a human judge. Can also be tied to the failure rate of appeals.