Proof Of Humanity

At the moment most of the rejections are down to human error. This is creating unnecessary costs to the system. It is also creating toxic human against human behaviours. The judicial approach is degenerative at the moment and we need a regenerative system that capitalises on the best of what humanity has to offer.

To have jurors confined to making robotic decisions fundamentally underestimates the power of humans.

For example, medical doctors have the Hippocratic oath and commit to ‘do no harm’ as an underlying principle that overrides literal rules in their work. Humans are skilled at managing complexity and dealing with tough moral issues.

Not using this capacity in this platform’s structure exposes the platform to significant long-term risks from bots, etc. We must design this platform that leverages human strengths and mitigates for human weaknesses.

At the moment there are lots of system costs for human error in submissions when human error is actually a very robust way of proving that people are human.

In terms of an overlying principle for jurors, this principle is suggesting that they must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a submission is not human whether or not a submission is perfectly submitted or not.

Whilst this may a scary decision from a technical point of view as the developer community in particular likes to have decisions that are black and white we must move beyond that to leverage the collective processing power of the humans in the system.