D
Don Y
Guest
I was reading this:
<https://theathletic.com/4791440/2023/08/25/mlb-robot-umpires-future/>
and was wondering about the objection to robots being \"too accurate\".
[There is a lack of concensus whether or not this is the case -- though
I\'m sure technology could address that issue]
I would think that a batter (and a pitcher) would welcome a
repeatable definition of the strike zone to eliminate errors
and biases introduced by (fallible) human umpires.
Yet, the complaints seem to be whiny -- as if the finality of
the decision is what irks people (hey, if it is WRONG, then
you have documented evidence to use in making your case as to
its applicability if not its current rulings!)
I\'m trying to draw parallels to our banning photo-traffic-enforcement,
here. Almost universally, people are in favor of automated detection
of FLAGRANT violations (which are common enough) -- e.g., someone
crossing the stop line (not even having entered the intersection
proper!) ON a red light.
The gripes seemed to be more along the lines of enforcing the
technicalities of the law. E.g., if you\'ve crept into the
intersection to make a turn (waiting for traffic to clear)
and the light turns red before you are COMPLETELY in the
intersection, you were cited for a violation. When your
alternative, at that point, was to stall *in* the intersection
ALSO as a violation (i.e., your error was crossing the stop line
before you had a clear shot across the intersection)
Imagine an AI checking to see that you only have \"15 items or
less\" before allowing you to enter the Express Checkout lane.
Would folks gripe if they were flagged at 16 items? 28?
OTOH, would they gripe if the customer in front of them
was allowed through with those same 28 items??
What causes the whiny-ness? Why do folks think THEY deserve
\"a break\" yet others are abusing the system?
<https://theathletic.com/4791440/2023/08/25/mlb-robot-umpires-future/>
and was wondering about the objection to robots being \"too accurate\".
[There is a lack of concensus whether or not this is the case -- though
I\'m sure technology could address that issue]
I would think that a batter (and a pitcher) would welcome a
repeatable definition of the strike zone to eliminate errors
and biases introduced by (fallible) human umpires.
Yet, the complaints seem to be whiny -- as if the finality of
the decision is what irks people (hey, if it is WRONG, then
you have documented evidence to use in making your case as to
its applicability if not its current rulings!)
I\'m trying to draw parallels to our banning photo-traffic-enforcement,
here. Almost universally, people are in favor of automated detection
of FLAGRANT violations (which are common enough) -- e.g., someone
crossing the stop line (not even having entered the intersection
proper!) ON a red light.
The gripes seemed to be more along the lines of enforcing the
technicalities of the law. E.g., if you\'ve crept into the
intersection to make a turn (waiting for traffic to clear)
and the light turns red before you are COMPLETELY in the
intersection, you were cited for a violation. When your
alternative, at that point, was to stall *in* the intersection
ALSO as a violation (i.e., your error was crossing the stop line
before you had a clear shot across the intersection)
Imagine an AI checking to see that you only have \"15 items or
less\" before allowing you to enter the Express Checkout lane.
Would folks gripe if they were flagged at 16 items? 28?
OTOH, would they gripe if the customer in front of them
was allowed through with those same 28 items??
What causes the whiny-ness? Why do folks think THEY deserve
\"a break\" yet others are abusing the system?