What will be some new jobs of the future?

[skepticalbip]

Given a choice, how many callers would opt for an automated voice service over speaking to an operator?

I don't think the telephone robo-representative will be accepted until it is an AI with much more flexibility. The the current voice recognition software can only follow a set trouble-shooting tree whether or not it applies to the reason someone called.

I've found a way to fairly quickly get linked to a human agent. For each question, answer "kumquats". Generally within three exchanges I am linked to a human (or a damned good AI).

 

[GenesisNemesis]

AI servant.

 

[Valjean]

Is our high population and high-tech lifestyle sustainable?
The current pandemic could be just a minor symptom of a looming environmental collapse; a sixth extinction.

I see a bright future for flint knapping.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Given a choice, how many callers would opt for an automated voice service over speaking to an operator?

I don't think the telephone robo-representative will be accepted until it is an AI with much more flexibility. The the current voice recognition software can only follow a set trouble-shooting tree whether or not it applies to the reason someone called.

I've found a way to fairly quickly get linked to a human agent. For each question, answer "kumquats". Generally within three exchanges I am linked to a human (or a damned good AI).

Yeah, if I'm calling I almost certainly need something more than the robot can handle. At best the robot can get me into the right queue.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Replace professional judges/lawyers with ordinary citizens, for appeal cases.

Review Panel / Appeal Board member

There are literally millions of appeal cases, of accused criminals, immigrants, and others, many in detention, whose cases are delayed because the courts are clogged with not enough judges/lawyers available to handle them all.

Appeals have to wait months or years to be heard.

Many cases could be heard by ordinary people rather than professional judges paid 200-300 thousand $$$ per year.

Cases of accused criminals could mostly be resolved by ordinary persons who could review the details, watch the videos, hear witnesses, etc., and decide if the guy should stay in detention.

Or immigrant cases could be heard, especially where something criminal is charged.

All those in detention should have the right to choose a non-professional review panel to resolve their case. And millions of ordinary citizens could be recruited to serve on the review panels.

 

[bigfield]

Review Panel / Appeal Board member

There are literally millions of appeal cases, of accused criminals, immigrants, and others, many in detention, whose cases are delayed because the courts are clogged with not enough judges/lawyers available to handle them all.

Appeals have to wait months or years to be heard.

Many cases could be heard by ordinary people rather than professional judges paid 200-300 thousand $$$ per year.

Cases of accused criminals could mostly be resolved by ordinary persons who could review the details, watch the videos, hear witnesses, etc., and decide if the guy should stay in detention.

Or immigrant cases could be heard, especially where something criminal is charged.

All those in detention should have the right to choose a non-professional review panel to resolve their case. And millions of ordinary citizens could be recruited to serve on the review panels.

I wouldn't trust most ordinary citizens to give a fair review of a local cafe, let alone a fair review of an appeal.

This is anti-intellectualism at work.

 

[skepticalbip]

I wouldn't trust most ordinary citizens to give a fair review of a local cafe, let alone a fair review of an appeal.

This is anti-intellectualism at work.

Hey, it couldn't be any worse than getting a lay opinion on the air worthiness of a passenger airplane or getting a lay opinion of a medical diagnosis.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Put people to use where they're needed, rather than create "jobs" we don't need them for.

I wouldn't trust most ordinary citizens to give a fair review of a local cafe, let alone a . . .

This isn't about asking them to push the "like" button, or posting their "review" of a movie or business etc. These appeal panel members would function like a jury, where they deliberate after hearing all the facts of the case.

. . let alone a fair review of an appeal.

This is anti-intellectualism at work.

Hey, it couldn't be any worse than getting a lay opinion on the air worthiness of a passenger airplane or getting a lay opinion of a medical diagnosis.

If ordinary people are not qualified to decide anything, then they should not be used to decide guilt-innocence in criminal trials.

There are millions of cases waiting for appeal which are less complicated to resolve than criminal cases.

Those waiting for their appeal, e.g., convicts appealing their case, should have the option to choose a non-professional panel of ordinary citizens. Many would make that choice, rather than having to wait 2 or 3 years.

There have been many TV documentaries, PBS etc., telling of the thousands of cases waiting for appeal.

There is a greater need for appeal jurors than there is for steel workers. All the steel production happens anyway, in China or wherever, so the need is met. But the need to resolve the millions of appeal cases is going unmet.

Of course, your logic might be that those steel workers (or laid-off steel-workers) are ignorant worthless scum, and all we can do with them is put them into steel mills (or factories) to keep them out of mischief, because they're not good for anything practical. So maybe you do have a point.

 

[skepticalbip]

Of course, your logic might be that those steel workers (or laid-off steel-workers) are ignorant worthless scum, and all we can do with them is put them into steel mills (or factories) to keep them out of mischief, because they're not good for anything practical. So maybe you do have a point.

Now that is asinine 'reasoning'. I wouldn't trust an aircraft engineer, medical doctor, judge, or lawyer to operate a steel foundry. Engineers, doctors, steel workers, etc. understand their fields but are much less qualified than those trained and experienced in different fields.

Judges are trained and experienced in law so are qualified to 'try the trial' that is under appeal. Engineers, doctors, steel workers, etc. are not trained and qualified in law.

But then you are apparently ignorant of what an appeal entails. It is not a retrial. It is an 'examination of the trial' to insure that all procedures were legal, above board, and that the sentence is within guidlines.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hey, it couldn't be any worse than getting a lay opinion on the air worthiness of a passenger airplane or getting a lay opinion of a medical diagnosis.

If ordinary people are not qualified to decide anything, then they should not be used to decide guilt-innocence in criminal trials.

Doesn't follow. Ordinary people aren't qualified to decide guilt-innocence in criminal trials. They should be used anyway, because of the Untouchables principle. "If you're afraid of getting a rotten apple, don't go to the barrel. Get it off the tree."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Review Panel / Appeal Board member

There are literally millions of appeal cases, of accused criminals, immigrants, and others, many in detention, whose cases are delayed because the courts are clogged with not enough judges/lawyers available to handle them all.

Appeals have to wait months or years to be heard.

Many cases could be heard by ordinary people rather than professional judges paid 200-300 thousand $$$ per year.

Cases of accused criminals could mostly be resolved by ordinary persons who could review the details, watch the videos, hear witnesses, etc., and decide if the guy should stay in detention.

Or immigrant cases could be heard, especially where something criminal is charged.

All those in detention should have the right to choose a non-professional review panel to resolve their case. And millions of ordinary citizens could be recruited to serve on the review panels.

Horrible idea. A judge should understand the law!

The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Review Panel / Appeal Board member

There are literally millions of appeal cases, of accused criminals, immigrants, and others, many in detention, whose cases are delayed because the courts are clogged with not enough judges/lawyers available to handle them all.

Appeals have to wait months or years to be heard.

Many cases could be heard by ordinary people rather than professional judges paid 200-300 thousand $$$ per year.

Cases of accused criminals could mostly be resolved by ordinary persons who could review the details, watch the videos, hear witnesses, etc., and decide if the guy should stay in detention.

Or immigrant cases could be heard, especially where something criminal is charged.

All those in detention should have the right to choose a non-professional review panel to resolve their case. And millions of ordinary citizens could be recruited to serve on the review panels.

Horrible idea. A judge should understand the law!

And what does it require to "understand the law"? 4 years of college, then 4 more years of law school? Half a million $$$$$ of higher-education costs?

The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.

"enough judge positions"?

We would need another 100,000 of them to meet the need. Probably half a million. Plus new courtroom facilities and infrastructure = billions $$$$ more. We can't afford it.

In the Roman Empire they had criminal cases decided by the Senate. So millions of cases never got heard, because there weren't enough Senators to judge all the cases.

Sometimes it's better to eliminate the elitists who are given the power, and instead let average folks make the decisions, because most of it is not rocket science.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what does it require to "understand the law"? 4 years of college, then 4 more years of law school? Half a million $$$$$ of higher-education costs?

The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.

"enough judge positions"?

We would need another 100,000 of them to meet the need. Probably half a million. Plus new courtroom facilities and infrastructure = billions $$$$ more. We can't afford it.

In the Roman Empire they had criminal cases decided by the Senate. So millions of cases never got heard, because there weren't enough Senators to judge all the cases.

Sometimes it's better to eliminate the elitists who are given the power, and instead let average folks make the decisions, because most of it is not rocket science.

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

And what does it require to "understand the law"? 4 years of college, then 4 more years of law school? Half a million $$$$$ of higher-education costs?

The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.

"enough judge positions"?

We would need another 100,000 of them to meet the need. Probably half a million. Plus new courtroom facilities and infrastructure = billions $$$$ more. We can't afford it.

In the Roman Empire they had criminal cases decided by the Senate. So millions of cases never got heard, because there weren't enough Senators to judge all the cases.

Sometimes it's better to eliminate the elitists who are given the power, and instead let average folks make the decisions, because most of it is not rocket science.

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?

 

[bigfield]

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?

A jury usually consists of a dozen people, not one. One person can make rash or wildly irrational judgements; twelve people from different backgrounds are far less likely to form a rash or irrational consensus. The jury system is costly and inefficient, which is why jury trials are limited to cases where the defendant is facing significant prison time.

Judges should not be popularly elected, nor should they be appointed by legislators. Both are failures of the US legal system and aren't the norm in other parts of the world. In other countries, judges are appointed by an independent committee of experts, and they are selected for their expertise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?

A jury usually consists of a dozen people, not one. One person can make rash or wildly irrational judgements; twelve people from different backgrounds are far less likely to form a rash or irrational consensus. The jury system is costly and inefficient, which is why jury trials are limited to cases where the defendant is facing significant prison time.

Judges should not be popularly elected, nor should they be appointed by legislators. Both are failures of the US legal system and aren't the norm in other parts of the world. In other countries, judges are appointed by an independent committee of experts, and they are selected for their expertise.

And why I would like to see the current system replaced with professional juries. "Juror" would be a profession, it would require a degree that covered a lot of fields but not that deeply.

 

[Politesse]

A jury usually consists of a dozen people, not one. One person can make rash or wildly irrational judgements; twelve people from different backgrounds are far less likely to form a rash or irrational consensus. The jury system is costly and inefficient, which is why jury trials are limited to cases where the defendant is facing significant prison time.

Judges should not be popularly elected, nor should they be appointed by legislators. Both are failures of the US legal system and aren't the norm in other parts of the world. In other countries, judges are appointed by an independent committee of experts, and they are selected for their expertise.

And why I would like to see the current system replaced with professional juries. "Juror" would be a profession, it would require a degree that covered a lot of fields but not that deeply.

That would open the door to further significant economic, religious, and racial disparities in juries. I would love to be such a professional juror (I'm one of those odd ducks that actually enjoys getting called in) but it would hurt the very notion of trial before one's peers if the majority of jurors were educated and the majority of the accused were not. I could imagine this working okay if we had free and accessible education, but that isn't how things stand in the U.S. The current jury pool is unbalanced as it is, simply because of how it is garnered.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

So you disagree with the jury system. You'd have the City Council, or State Legislature, hear all the cases and decide guilt/innocence, because having the average people (juries) decide it is worse than we'd get from the elected demagogue-elitist speech-makers. Why do you think speech-maker elitists would perform the function better?

You seem to still be conflating jury trials and appeals. Or is it that you have dropped your idea of how appeals should be handled and moved on to how trials should be handled?

 

[Keith&Co.]

And what does it require to "understand the law"? 4 years of college, then 4 more years of law school? Half a million $$$$$ of higher-education costs?

The basic problem is we don't don't fund enough judge positions--it's not just the judge, but the whole courtroom and supporting infrastructure.

"enough judge positions"?

We would need another 100,000 of them to meet the need. Probably half a million. Plus new courtroom facilities and infrastructure = billions $$$$ more. We can't afford it.

In the Roman Empire they had criminal cases decided by the Senate. So millions of cases never got heard, because there weren't enough Senators to judge all the cases.

Sometimes it's better to eliminate the elitists who are given the power, and instead let average folks make the decisions, because most of it is not rocket science.

If you have just the average person decide things it would be worse than what we have now.

Think about the McDonald's coffee case. Most legal experts agree it was a good decision, a fair award, good law.
Corporate America campaigned to convince the average Joe it was bad law, juries gone crazy, litigation out of control. Which is where most of them still seem to be.
Let's have legal experts fo law. Joe average doing an appeal would be taking a compound fracture to the essential oils saleslady for treatment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A jury usually consists of a dozen people, not one. One person can make rash or wildly irrational judgements; twelve people from different backgrounds are far less likely to form a rash or irrational consensus. The jury system is costly and inefficient, which is why jury trials are limited to cases where the defendant is facing significant prison time.

Judges should not be popularly elected, nor should they be appointed by legislators. Both are failures of the US legal system and aren't the norm in other parts of the world. In other countries, judges are appointed by an independent committee of experts, and they are selected for their expertise.

And why I would like to see the current system replaced with professional juries. "Juror" would be a profession, it would require a degree that covered a lot of fields but not that deeply.

That would open the door to further significant economic, religious, and racial disparities in juries. I would love to be such a professional juror (I'm one of those odd ducks that actually enjoys getting called in) but it would hurt the very notion of trial before one's peers if the majority of jurors were educated and the majority of the accused were not. I could imagine this working okay if we had free and accessible education, but that isn't how things stand in the U.S. The current jury pool is unbalanced as it is, simply because of how it is garnered.

How would that be worse than the current situation where we have a strong bias towards juries of the less competent?