[jstummbillig]

I don't understand. Why would an AI judge inherently be more perceptible to being gamed than a human judge?

[llamaimperative]

Computer systems fail systematically, humans fail more randomly (for most classes of failure)

[NeutralCrane]

Not sure this holds, especially given the context of boxing, which is notorious for corruption.

[meiraleal]

> humans fail more randomly

And often intentionally

[notahacker]

Yep. The in-a-nutshell argument for AI is that there's an unusual amount of bias and corruption in boxing judges, who usually determine the victor. The in-a-nutshell argument against is that less subjective scoring systems like punch counting have already been tried as an alternative in Olympic boxing, but fans didn't like the adaptations in style that resulted. (Of course, dropping the punch counting for the 2016 Olympics immediately resulted in subjective judgements that were interesting at best...)

[llamaimperative]

Sure but then you at least have basis to complain instead of “that’s just how the game is now.”

[jstummbillig]

I don't see why we would need to say that, when we can debug and fix the system.

[harimau777]

A computer can only judge based on things that can be measured. Martial arts (and really sports in general) rely heavily on things that can't be measured such as aggression, spirit, toughness, etc.

[lazide]

They get measured when it matters - in who gets beaten down at the end, yes?

[sbelskie]

I believe the argument would be that humans are inconsistent, fallible, and gameable in idiosyncratic and individual ways not that they are less susceptible than AI.