SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the are-you-a-net-gain-or-a-net-drain? dept.
Many jobs have spillover effects on the rest of society. For instance, the value of new treatments discovered by biomedical researchers is far greater than what they or their employers get paid, so they have positive spillovers. Other jobs have negative spillovers, such as those that generate pollution.
A forthcoming paper, by economists at UPenn and Yale,1 reports a survey of the economic literature on these spillover benefits for the 11 highest-earning professions.
There's very little literature, so all these estimates are very, very uncertain, and should be not be taken literally. But it's interesting reading.
Here are the bottom lines – see more detail on the estimates below. (Note that we already discussed an older version of this paper, but the estimates have been updated since then.)
(Emphasis in original retained.)
At the top, researchers who generate +$950,440 in positive externalities; at the bottom, financiers who generate -$104,000 in negative externalities. In a glaring omission, telephone sanitisers were not listed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 29 2017, @01:07PM (3 children)
As your subsequent sentences demonstrated, no the law doesn't make that perfectly clear.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday June 29 2017, @08:30PM (2 children)
The law if perfectly clear: the act of killing someone is murder. That describes the action. Then the penalties associated to how the action was performed: was it self-defense? Walk away free. Was is accidental? It is manslaughter. Was it intentional? Yes, then sub-clause, was it premeditated? The penalty you get depends on how the act was committed.
If you can’t understand such a simple and clear arrangement, you make my point that AI is far from being able to run the legal system.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 29 2017, @09:38PM (1 child)
No, it's not. Not even intentionally killing someone. You need more such as the mentioned mens rea or aggravating circumstances such as while committing a felony.
I'm not misunderstanding anything. Murder is more than just killing someone.
As to running the legal system, there's already several ways that humans are integral to the system, particularly a jury of peers. But the rest doesn't require humans. I don't feel the urge to automate the process since it works well enough and automated processes can be vastly less efficient in ways that human counterparts can't match.
(Score: 1) by jelizondo on Friday June 30 2017, @10:26PM
You are correct, the word I should have used is homicide, not murder.
I normally avoid technical terms (such as homicide) that might not be familiar to people in the group or have a subtle meaning, thus with lawyers I won’t bring up the Fresnel Zone and call it simply line of sight and with engineers or other technical people I would use murder instead of homicide.
Cheers