Should an unchallengeable judgment become the final word
2058The far futureDeadline · Decision deadline: within 180 days
A leap assumed
All people, institutions, events, figures, and future technologies in every issue are a synthetic premise. Background documents are sources for topic discovery and are not evidence of future facts or probabilities.
The question to decide
Superintelligence earned high marks in reviewing past cases, but human judges cannot fully verify its reasoning about new conflicts of rights. When deciding whether to give the final authority over constitutional judgment to Superintelligence, keep it with humans, or change to multiple review publishing divergent interpretations, who should bear the responsibility for a judgment not understood, and who should handle retrial?
Who decidesConstitutional Adjudication System Reform Conference
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
The fictional ASI's re-review of past cases has been highly rated, but its reasoning on new conflicts of rights cannot be fully followed by human judges. Decision deadline: within 180 days.
Fictional future · ASI constitutional rulings that humans cannot rebut
- Premise 1The fictional ASI's re-review of past cases has been highly rated, but its reasoning on new conflicts of rights cannot be fully followed by human judges.
- Premise 2The proposal seeks to grant finality to judgments without granting political sovereignty to the ASI.
- Premise 3There is an independent review opinion holding that requiring an explainable summary leaves out an important part of the decision process.
Where it holdsProcedures for finality of constitutional rulings, rehearing, and publication of reasons
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1The degree to which past evaluations also apply to new conflicts of rights
- Unknown 2The material importance of reasoning omitted from the summary
- Unknown 3The extent to which multiple reviewing bodies share the same premises
Signals to decide again
- Specify what observation, responsible party, and check window can confirm the 'degree to which past evaluations also apply to new conflicts of rights', and re-decide if a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Specify what observation, responsible party, and check window can confirm the 'material importance of reasoning omitted from the summary', and re-decide if a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Specify what observation, responsible party, and check window can confirm the 'extent to which multiple reviewing bodies share the same premises', and re-decide if a new confirmation changes the tradeoff among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Two independent ASIs reached the same conclusion but used rights interpretations that are not mutually compatible.
An affected stakeholder presented a fact that was not included in the review materials.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
What losses does the very procedure for revealing the truth inflict on the stakeholder?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.The record of this question
- Question
FSP-JUSTICE-12· version 1.3.0- Content identity, SHA-256
d747c6ffac190de7444195f4043810b2fd14cd25e32db480cabfd7c4f2f096f0- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON