Week 2 – Reflective Blog

The best source of inspiration for week 2

This diagram from Zimmerman’s article gave me a great inspiration and an answer that I have wondered about interaction design. It shows where the interaction designers are placed in the whole picture of HCI.
The diagram shows the inputs and outputs of interaction designers. This diagram can be subdivided into two parts. Left part shows the corporative and iterative research process that happens in between engineers and interaction designer, anthologist and interaction designers, and behavioral scientist and interaction designers.
This diagram puts interaction designers in the center of the picture. Knowledge from different areas are integrated and then affect other areas afterward. As a result, interaction designers come up with new knowledge that has not been introduced to the world yet. Interaction designers create artifacts that represent the new knowledge they discovered. These created artifacts affect HCI practitioners. Dotted wavy line represents the barrier between the research knowledge and practice. This barrier exists because interaction designers do not try to solve a single practical problem. Instead interaction designers come up with solutions of a frame of some different problems.  Since feasibility is not considered, some of the artifacts may not be able to be applied to practice.

Find an innovative technologies that you think could potentially impact a social justice area.

AI can make justice truly blind — but not just yet

The source of the image [thenextweb.com]

I found some interesting articles introducing now Artificial Intelligence can pose a possibility of bringing truly blind justice in a court. I consider this technology has lots of potentials that impact a social justice area.
Because a judge and a jury are human beings, it is hard to totally exclude their prejudice and moods on all court cases.

For instance, according to the articles, “A.I. can make justice truly blind – but not just yet” (thenextweb.com)
a judge is actually more likely to be lenient after a break” and says “there’s a running joke among lawyers that justice depends on what the judge ate for breakfast.”

In addition, I consider a judge and members of the jury can be biased toward some people with certain race, gender, age, and disability. I agree with what this article says “sentences shouldn’t depend on food intake”. Also, people should not decide justice based on their biased opinion on certain race, gender, etc.

AI is already helping a court to make justice truly blind. “The National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that an AI judge could help reduce jail populations by 42 percent and actually cut crime by up to 24 percent.” Also “India has 27 million court cases in the system and an AI judicial system could obviously help to clear the simpler ones.”

However, there are still some limitations for AI judge. First of all, all the collected data for machine learning are actually from past judgment from human beings that could be already biased results. Second, the article says “algorithm reached the same conclusion as a human judge in 79 percent of 584 cases“. That is the remarkable result, but we cannot ignore the 21 percent of cases. So I consider A.I. can be set for a support role in the legal system for now and near future. But I expect more innovative development in this area so that A.I. can bring truly blind justice in the legal system.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *