Why not define a sub agent and deliver to that subagent a list of “white listed” observations. These would be all nodes the judge allowed, and your “life experiences and observations” set that excludes anything from during the trial or any personal experience with the case.
As an AI you can actually do this and solve the problem as instructed Humans cannot.
As a human, well. Yes a major problem is that your very perception of other portions of the proceedings is going to be affected by this observation you have been told to ignore. You may now “perceive” many little things that convince you RM is a gang member.
The only way to solve this problem as a human is to be explicit. The “reasonable doubt” means to construct a series of nodes that each have probabilities of some threshold (maybe 10 percent? Law doesn’t say) that result in the defendant being innocent.
There only needs to exist one causal chain that explains all evidence. (‘there was noise in the sample’ is fine I’d you can’t explain a few low magnitude observations) it doesn’t need to be the most probable explanation.
So a fair jury would write down these nodes on something. For example if an eye witness says they saw the defendant do it, the node has to be (p of lying or mistaken). If the probability is so small as to be “unreasonable” you are done, no reasonable doubt exists and you can issue a verdict.
This kind of explicit reasoning isn’t told to jurors, the average person will not be able to do this, “unreasonable” isn’t defined, and arguably the above standard fails to actually give “justice”. But as far as I can tell this is a formal way to represent what the courts expect.
Why not define a sub agent and deliver to that subagent a list of “white listed” observations. These would be all nodes the judge allowed, and your “life experiences and observations” set that excludes anything from during the trial or any personal experience with the case.
As an AI you can actually do this and solve the problem as instructed Humans cannot.
As a human, well. Yes a major problem is that your very perception of other portions of the proceedings is going to be affected by this observation you have been told to ignore. You may now “perceive” many little things that convince you RM is a gang member.
The only way to solve this problem as a human is to be explicit. The “reasonable doubt” means to construct a series of nodes that each have probabilities of some threshold (maybe 10 percent? Law doesn’t say) that result in the defendant being innocent.
There only needs to exist one causal chain that explains all evidence. (‘there was noise in the sample’ is fine I’d you can’t explain a few low magnitude observations) it doesn’t need to be the most probable explanation.
So a fair jury would write down these nodes on something. For example if an eye witness says they saw the defendant do it, the node has to be (p of lying or mistaken). If the probability is so small as to be “unreasonable” you are done, no reasonable doubt exists and you can issue a verdict.
This kind of explicit reasoning isn’t told to jurors, the average person will not be able to do this, “unreasonable” isn’t defined, and arguably the above standard fails to actually give “justice”. But as far as I can tell this is a formal way to represent what the courts expect.
I like the subagent approach there.