Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

L0to t1_jcntwe5 wrote

Why do we even use refs when we have the technology to make instant calls more accurately? Refs are obsolete and just serve to further corruption in gambling.


6942O694206942O t1_jcnwq20 wrote

Because the way the rules are written there is nearly certainly a foul on every play.


L0to t1_jcnwsq8 wrote

And at this point an AI would slow the game down less and do a more accurate job of enforcing the rules than a human ref.


6942O694206942O t1_jcnx64d wrote

But it wouldn’t, because you could find a foul on every play. The reason the game is watchable is because it is loosely called. Think back and name me a game with a ton of fouls that you found enjoyable. Do you want to watch a 6 hour game with 100 points from free throws?

What you’re proposing would require an AI to make decisions even humans can’t get right all the time, because the game is largely based on momentum and vibe. There is no excitement in a tightly called game, which is why you’re not painting your chest for a bowling tournament.


L0to t1_jcnxf8e wrote

Wouldn't a limited use of AI make senee however, sich as for calling strikes and balls during baseball pitches? I can think of applications where it makes sense to incorporate technology way more than it is currently utilized. Obviously sone sports and rulings it has more applicability than others.


6942O694206942O t1_jcnyztm wrote

It would be difficult. It’s certainly going to be possible in the future. Maybe not yet.

Balls and strikes have kind of a history of being varied according to the umpire. You could make the strike zone perfect, or randomize it with a slightly different zone that is called perfectly accurately.

I think there’s a lot going on underneath the hood we don’t think about. If umpires have their own unique style that creates a teaching opportunity for veterans, which could potentially increase morale through bonding and mentorship.

Another aspect we might consider is it is possible that people like the randomness that human fallibility injects into the game. Who doesn’t like blaming their team’s loss on a last second bad call when they had a poor performance all night and lucked themselves into being in contention? I think if you’re looking for trust that’s not an achievable goal. How many times have you seen someone blaming “the algorithm”. With sports betting, if the game were automated nobody would ever trust sports betting again, because the ongoing consolidation and cooperation of large corporations is largely unregulated and any resulting fines amount to a “cost of doing business” level.


L0to t1_jcnzktt wrote

What, people trust the current system of sports betting where it relies on a single human as a point of failure? People use online betting all the time so I don't think this is as big an issue as you are making it out to be, nor do I think the AI would be rigged to favor gambling outcomes. If the system is supposed to be impartial but fucks up, people will reject it in favor of just going back to human refs since it isn't actually providing a tangible advantage. Considering how much rage bad calls generate I am not sure people actually like that system, however what you might be arguing is that it generates engagement. It's like the facebook algorithm where they found that feeding people emotionally charged content increased use time even if those emotions were negative; over time facebook has lost user retention so I don't know if that is really a sustainable model.


6942O694206942O t1_jcnzsza wrote

Facebook lost the plot because they learned too hard into rage that wasn’t personal, in my opinion.

You might be right about the betting thing, I’m no expert. I appreciate your perspective. Personally I love a blown call, something to talk about. One of the last things a majority of people might know about.