Something to ponder... (Page 2/10)
BingB MAR 23, 09:55 AM

quote
Originally posted by Raydar:


Are you referring to the Constitution? Or just "courts" in general?
You know it takes a monumental, concerted effort to change the constitution - by design. Right?
There's a reason for that - in spite of all the "end-around" regulations, and E.O.s that "agencies and presidents" try to pass off.

It is not a "living document" as some wish.




The law changes constantly based on the courts interpretation.

The Constitution did not change when same sex couple were given equal protection under the law or when a womans right to abortion was recently limited.
Raydar MAR 23, 10:01 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:

The law changes constantly based on the courts interpretation.




Well... the interpretation certainly changes.
Personally, I think there are too many "laws" and too many interpretations. Too many interpretations that would tend to "whittle away" at the Constitution, bit by bit.
And yeah... it goes both ways, depending upon your social outlook.
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 23, 10:23 AM

quote
Originally posted by Raydar:

To directly answer the question...
AI is a misnomer. It is not "intelligent". It does not think. At all.
All it does is compile facts. Hard facts. LOTS AND LOTS of hard facts.

But it has no "judgement", per se. It can (and will) overlook subtleties and nuances that a person can detect. (AI can't, to my knowledge, detect tone of voice, nervousness, or even sarcasm.) It seems like it would be difficult to present raw facts in a format that could be accurately judged. It also seems that it would be too easy to skew the information, to one's own purpose.

So... "No". Which doesn't mean that someone won't try.




AI can certainly be trained to discern tone of voice, nervousness, and sarcasm... using anything from Computer Vision to identify facial traits, to audio analysis to identify the other things. But as you say... judgement is the issue. AI doesn't so much miss subtleties (there are masking routines to ensure rule integrity is respected), but it has trouble making humanistic and logical inferences. Things that require somewhat "illogical thought" in order to properly reason (as a human) is not something that AI can necessarily do, and likely will never be able to do well.
olejoedad MAR 23, 11:06 AM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
The law changes constantly based on the courts interpretation.

The Constitution did not change when same sex couple were given equal protection under the law or when a womans right to abortion was recently limited.



Women have never had a 'right' to have an abortion.
olejoedad MAR 23, 11:09 AM
I've been using AI all of my life, but I'm referring to Actual Intelligence.......just sayin'.

Maybe they should revise the name to small letter 'a' and capital letter 'I'.
BingB MAR 23, 11:51 AM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


Women have never had a 'right' to have an abortion.


You need to do a little research. In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion until the third trimester. No state could make a law to violate that right.
BingB MAR 23, 11:53 AM

quote
Originally posted by Raydar:


Well... the interpretation certainly changes.
Personally, I think there are too many "laws" and too many interpretations. Too many interpretations that would tend to "whittle away" at the Constitution, bit by bit.
And yeah... it goes both ways, depending upon your social outlook.




It is impossible to write a law so specific that it covers every possible set of facts. The Courts are the ones who fill in the blanks and decide how the laws are to be interpreted.

olejoedad MAR 23, 12:35 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:

You need to do a little research. In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion until the third trimester. No state could make a law to violate that right.



I would argue that Rights come to a person from God.
Any person can kill another, its a choice.
God also commands "Thou shalt not kill".

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 03-23-2024).]

randye MAR 23, 04:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:


In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion until the third trimester. No state could make a law to violate that right.





In 2022 the court corrected that error.

"We hold," he (Justice Alito) wrote (for the majority), that "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion."

"To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. "

Accordingly, there was never any such "right" to abortion specified or implied in the Constitution.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-23-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] MAR 23, 07:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:

You need to do a little research. In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion until the third trimester. No state could make a law to violate that right.




"the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion" NO... this is completely incorrect. They stated that a woman had the right to PRIVACY. And by virtue of that, allowed women in some cases to make a decision (privately) what was best for them. It was very clear in that it gave no absolute right to an abortion (this is literally in the decision). There was no such statement that said "the constitution protected a woman's right to have an abortion." The entire decision ultimately led to the passage of the Privacy Act of 1974, which is the grandfather to our modern electronic privacy rights (and even a foundational component of Europe's GDPR, and similar laws here like CCPA, etc.

It was widely heralded by many Democrat constitutional lawyers, including Archibald Cox, that it was a very poor decision, and mixed two completely dissimilar concepts (the right to privacy, and the right to essentially murder a fetus). It was WELL known, for a very long time, that this was a very poorly made court decision that was based almost entirely on activism, rather than constitutional logic.

To that point, Democrats have known for many, MANY decades that this law would eventually be overturned if and when the right appeal and conditions were met. The constitution makes no law for or against abortion, and in absence of a Federal law, it's entirely up to the states. Democrats had 50 years to pass a law... even just the most basic law to ensure or better define the conditions of an abortion... and they never bothered to. They just used it as a political carrot... always threatening it would be repealed.