Vagueness and the Aftermath - A sporadic diary

[EssexPhil]

You said recently that "AI has its dark side". Something that I find interesting.

I decided to retire about 10 years ago. And have done no Law since. But I recently asked a good friend how AI has changed Law. And his reply shocked me. In 2 major ways.

Firstly, it is having a devastating effect on job security. Literally thousands of mid-level Solicitors are going. The only survivors are proving to be the very best and the Minimum waged. Not in all fields (never needed a brain to do Conveyancing). But things like Litigation are being transformed. Knowledge is no longer relevant.

Secondly, forget the notion that AI is some sort of higher, non-judgmental power. The reverse is true. Suppose you want AI to draft legal proceedings. No-one just asks AI to draft proceedings. The instruction is "do it in the style of me" (having supplied AI with 2-3 previous draft pleadings) or "do it in the style of Boris Johnson, or Jeremy Corbyn or Donald Trump". And AI regularly tells BOTH sides they are likely to win

This isn't just confined to Law. So (for example) the Daily Express (or Mirror) have got rid of nearly all their journalists. And just churn out the same recycled AI ad nauseam. So (for example) every Friday the Express repeats the same article showing the best 30 seconds for the Right on Question Time. And every single week the Left (apparently) get "skewered"

The World is changing. And not in a good way.

[RED-DOG]

I don't imagine most people, me included, realise how much our thought processes are influenced by algorithms. For instance, I'm very anti Donald Trump, so most of the things I see reinforce that view, even though I'm careful to the point of paranoia about logging in, signing up, following, or accepting cookies. (If I can't reject all cookies, I close the link and move on)

On the other side of the coin, I suspect that Trump supporters are far more susceptible to online propaganda.

I have one pro Trump "Friend" who believes everything Trump says, even when he contradicts himself with his next sentence.

For balance though, my toaster is more intelligent than my friend.

[RED-DOG]

I would be interested in your opinion Phil. (Or anyone else for that matter)

I read this story in the news today. It is abridged here for convenience.


A couple in Indonesia has been caned 140 times for having sex outside marriage and drinking alcohol because it violates Sharia, or Islamic religious law.


The 21-year-old woman fainted after what authorities said was a record number of strokes to be meted out in a public caning session in the Aceh province.

Three female officers took turns striking her with a rattan cane, while she cried. After she collapsed, she was carried off the stage by female officers to an ambulance.

Under Aceh's Islamic criminal code, sex outside marriage is punishable by 100 strokes of the cane, while consuming alcohol carries 40 strokes.


Now whilst I can't condone the examples above, I can't help but think that the likes of muggers, phone-snatchers and fraudsters who pray on the elderly and vulnerable might benefit from it.

Am I a hypocrite? (I suspect I already know the answer)

[doubleup]

Am I a hypocrite?

AI Overview
A hypocrite is generally defined as someone who acts in contradiction to their stated beliefs, principles, or feelings, often preaching virtues they do not practice. It involves a gap between public presentation (a "mask") and private actions, or holding others to a standard you do not follow.

Key Indicators: Common behaviors include saying one thing but doing another, giving advice you don't follow, or judging others for actions you commit yourself.

......


If you are questioning your actions, you are likely self-reflecting, which is a step away from being a true hypocrite

[RED-DOG]

I might have phrased my question badly.

I want your opinion on caning muggers et al, not my hypocrisy. (Although I admit that was also a question)

[Pokerpops]

You’re not alone in those thoughts Tom, I think most of our age have had them.

Would I want to actually see people birched for mugging or phone snatching?

No. Not least because it would be a step along a very dangerous path that leads to an escalating scale of punishment that has only one end point.

[EssexPhil]

I'm one of those woolly liberals, so of course I think such punishments are both barbaric and wrong.

However, for balance, I believe it is for every Country (or, in this case, region) to make its own Laws. And people have to make their own judgment calls about whether to break Laws.

There's lots of Laws in this country (never mind Sharia or Trump Law) that I profoundly disagree with. There's lot to be said for trying to change repressive Laws. But if people choose to live in Aceh (as opposed to pretty much everywhere else in Indonesia-it is the only state to practice Sharia Law) then people need to modify their behaviours.

The big problem with so-called deterrents is, simply, that they do not work. Because very few Criminals seem to be able to factor in the risk of getting caught, and risk/reward. Typical example is Armed Robbery. I recall 4 men getting 14 years inside each for robbing a petrol station. For £200-between the 4 of them.

Against that, certain Arab States will say that there are not many 1-handed pickpockets

[RED-DOG]

Nothing wrong with being liberal. (or wooly for that matter, before the sheep take offence)
We have to have deterrents though, and if caning and 14 years in prison don't work, what will?

I have to admit that if there were no deterrents, or other, perhaps more obvious barriers, I would probably be a quite prolific philanderer.