What Is A Robbery? Devin Haney - Vasyl Lomachenko Scored By Unbaised Artificial Intelligence.

[N/A]

It's based on the rules of the sport. There is nothing biased in determining whether a punch lands or doesn't land. There is no basis in deterring wither a punch was hard or soft. Are there sometimes mistakes? Of course, nothing is perfect, but the error rate is so much less than what we see with humans, that to not use this new technology would be madness. This similar to being against the use of replays in football. This technology presents and collects data from the fight. It still requires humans to interpret that data and score the fight.

Like I said, there is nothing biased in look at a punch and assessing whether it lands or doesn't, whether is was high impact or low impact. It collects all kinds of data. And it has been in the development stage for years already. It has more than 1,000 professionals analyzing it and giving feedback to improve its performance. This is the future. This is a step toward preventing corruption in the sport. All boxers need to get a fair shake because of what's at stake career wise.

The next step is to clean up the NSAC. That is the biggest problem in the sport right now. This sport is a niche sport because people just are tired of robberies. I talked to several guys in their 60s and 70s who told me they stopped watching a long time ago because seeing all the robberies made them lose love for the sport. If you talk to anyone who used to watch this sport but no longer do so, you will hear the same reason given: "The sport is too corrupt."

This still doesn't answer the algorithms and is general blah blah. Nor the AI can fully decide if something landed or scratched a fighter, i.e. was it a hard and clean punch or not (which is way different when you are scoring a fight and are next to the ring seeing and hearing closely everything). AI doesn't understand effective aggression, ring generalship and defence. In case it starts doing it, those algorithms become even more important and can be manipulated to score improperly just as are some of the judges' or the referee's decisions now. At this stage, instant replay is a pretty good decision, but also improving the quality of judges and referees and their understanding of the rules. Not to mention the fact that if you have a corrupted referee or a judge, it is easier to blame and punish it - what do you do in case of a bad AI decision? The AI instance is one, while in the other case, it is harder and more obvious in case more than one judge is corrupt. So I am not against using any kind of technology - on the contrary. It is very important to decide which one and to what extent.

Comparing this to football or any game where you need to see where a ball landed or a player was is quite different to implementing it into fights. It's like saying apples are the same as pears because they are fruits anyway.

[Cypocryphy]

This still doesn't answer the algorithms and is general blah blah. Nor the AI can fully decide if something landed or scratched a fighter, i.e. was it a hard and clean punch or not (which is way different when you are scoring a fight and are next to the ring seeing and hearing closely everything). AI doesn't understand effective aggression, ring generalship and defence. In case it starts doing it, those algorithms become even more important and can be manipulated to score improperly just as are some of the judges' or the referee's decisions now. At this stage, instant replay is a pretty good decision, but also improving the quality of judges and referees and their understanding of the rules. Not to mention the fact that if you have a corrupted referee or a judge, it is easier to blame and punish it - what do you do in case of a bad AI decision? The AI instance is one, while in the other case, it is harder and more obvious in case more than one judge is corrupt. So I am not against using any kind of technology - on the contrary. It is very important to decide which one and to what extent.

Comparing this to football or any game where you need to see where a ball landed or a player was is quite different to implementing it into fights. It's like saying apples are the same as pears because they are fruits anyway.

I'm going to just stop you right there. I believe you're in a position where you don't know what it is that you don't know. The only way you can understand the "algorithm" is if you work in the field of A.I. The technical level required to implement this into the sport requires expertise.

However, I will tell you what you can do: You can watch the fights while the A.I. is analyzing them. You can verify with your own eyes whether a punch landed or didn't land and how hard of an impact that punch made on the target. This is something YOU CAN DO.

What you are doing now is just making presumptions and assumptions on something that you (from my standpoint) haven't even bothered to investigate. I think before you have a knee jerk reaction the the use of A.I. to score fights, you should actually watch several fights with the A.I. in action and then verify whether it made a correct assessment.

At this moment, your criticisms are to divorced from reality. You need more support for your arguments, and the only way you can do that is to watch the fights and mark down where the errors were. And on that point, understand too that nothing is perfect and that the A.I. is analyzing these fights from one point of view. In reality, the fight will be analyzed from all angles to create a near perfect assessment.

[N/A]

I'm going to just stop you right there. I believe you're in a position where you don't know what it is that you don't know. The only way you can understand the "algorithm" is if you work in the field of A.I. The technical level required to implement this into the sport requires expertise.

However, I will tell you what you can do: You can watch the fights while the A.I. is analyzing them. You can verify with your own eyes whether a punch landed or didn't land and how hard of an impact that punch made on the target. This is something YOU CAN DO.

What you are doing now is just making presumptions and assumptions on something that you (from my standpoint) haven't even bothered to investigate. I think before you have a knee jerk reaction the the use of A.I. to score fights, you should actually watch several fights with the A.I. in action and then verify whether it made a correct assessment.

At this moment, your criticisms are to divorced from reality. You need more support for your arguments, and the only way you can do that is to watch the fights and mark down where the errors were. And on that point, understand too that nothing is perfect and that the A.I. is analyzing these fights from one point of view. In reality, the fight will be analyzed from all angles to create a near perfect assessment.

You are clueless in both sports and IT area, but you blindly come up with some superficial arguments. And to your surprise I am indeed an IT guy and I explained to you about the rules (and in particular how a fight is scored - show me where the AI analyzes all of the aspects mentioned), the capabilities, the specifics of the sport deep enough and deeper than you ever did so far.

[Cypocryphy]

You are clueless in both sports and IT area, but you blindly come up with some superficial arguments. And to your surprise I am indeed an IT guy and I explained to you about the rules (and in particular how a fight is scored - show me where the AI analyzes all of the aspects mentioned), the capabilities, the specifics of the sport deep enough and deeper than you ever did so far.

I don't believe you work in IT unless it's in a call center for customer support. You have brought up issues already answered in the thread, but because you have a brain the size of a pea, you didn't even realize that. The criteria used to judge is displayed at the end of each round and mentioned earlier in this thread, but because you haven't even looked at the fight and brought up the criteria (cited it in your post), means you're a complete dumbass and some nut sucker for Devin. That's really what it comes down to.

If you start attacking commenter rather than the comment, I'm going to spank you in front of everyone and so everyone can see how much of a lying dumbass you are.

[Cypocryphy]

You are clueless in both sports and IT area, but you blindly come up with some superficial arguments. And to your surprise I am indeed an IT guy and I explained to you about the rules (and in particular how a fight is scored - show me where the AI analyzes all of the aspects mentioned), the capabilities, the specifics of the sport deep enough and deeper than you ever did so far.

By the way, if you indeed work in IT (at a call center), then I imagine you'd be extremely biased toward it because it is about to make you as an employee irrelevant. That's the fear many of you IT guys have. So I suppose your prejudice against the technology is understood.

[crimsonfalcon07]

I don't believe you work in IT unless it's in a call center for customer support. You have brought up issues already answered in the thread, but because you have a brain the size of a pea, you didn't even realize that. The criteria used to judge is displayed at the end of each round and mentioned earlier in this thread, but because you haven't even looked at the fight and brought up the criteria (cited it in your post), means you're a complete dumbass and some nut sucker for Devin. That's really what it comes down to.

If you start attacking commenter rather than the comment, I'm going to spank you in front of everyone and so everyone can see how much of a lying dumbass you are.

Holy hypocrisy, Batman. As seems to be your MO, rather than engage with facts, you just go straight to ad hominem and then gaslight. You must have your life savings invested in this company, because you get CRAZY defensive any time anyone points out the obvious flaws.

And that's coming from someone who also agrees both that Loma got robbed and that boxing scoring is corrupt and needs to change.

[Cypocryphy]

Holy hypocrisy, Batman. As seems to be your MO, rather than engage with facts, you just go straight to ad hominem and then gaslight. You must have your life savings invested in this company, because you get CRAZY defensive any time anyone points out the obvious flaws.

And that's coming from someone who also agrees both that Loma got robbed and that boxing scoring is corrupt and needs to change.

Here's comes the knight in shining armor If you want to get on your hands and knees for these guys, be my guest. But if I remember right, you came in and attacked the commenter and not the comment, and now you want to play victim? How pathetic.

What obvious flaw did the previous poster point out? I'm curious. What is THE OBVIOUS FLAW? That it might be prone to error? That a mistake might be made somewhere? That the paradigm used to assess a match might be skewed to benefit one fighter and not the other (which obviously is not the case)? What is the obvious flaw?

And by the way, I did not attack this guy. I just pointed out that it was obvious he hasn't watched it in action or assessed anything. Had he done so, he wouldn't be asking me what criteria are being used to qualify the fight. He responded:

You are clueless in both sports and IT area, but you blindly .....

​
Once someone go ad hominem, I will come back and spank them publicly. If you keep it civil, then so will I.

And I want to just add that there are rules being used for the judges and statisticians already in this sport. These rules are all agreed on. We have been over this before. You have rules and criteria (such as landing a punch with the knuckles with a closed glove) to determine a clean punch. Nobody disputes this. The A.I. implements this in its analysis. If you think some other threshold should be used (because you claimed that a clean punch is disputed when it's not; its' very clear), then you would be chasing the rules of the sport.

The real issue is being able to accurately identify, qualify and quantify a specific event, and so far, it has been consistently improved upon. If you want to bring up some technical issue that's valid, I have no issue with that. But when an argument is about presuming that the technology is inherently corrupt, I will have an issue with that when there is no evidence to support such a claim.

But do tell me what the "obvious flaw" is in this system.

[N/A]

I don't believe you work in IT unless it's in a call center for customer support. You have brought up issues already answered in the thread, but because you have a brain the size of a pea, you didn't even realize that. The criteria used to judge is displayed at the end of each round and mentioned earlier in this thread, but because you haven't even looked at the fight and brought up the criteria (cited it in your post), means you're a complete dumbass and some nut sucker for Devin. That's really what it comes down to.

If you start attacking commenter rather than the comment, I'm going to spank you in front of everyone and so everyone can see how much of a lying dumbass you are.

Your beliefs, as it can be seen, are pretty limited and naive. Now I add the fact you believe a call centre is an IT domain.

The point is you are unable to tell me how all of these problems can be solved by AI so far, but you are quickly able to start insulting and be vulgar which means my size of a pea brain still owns yours.

I watched the fight several times and I am not a Haney fan, but coming up with that means you are Loma's fangirl. You are probably even ****, being so aggressive when it comes to your beloved. And when you get exposed, you start bringing quotes out of the context. It's pathetic.

By the way, if you indeed work in IT (at a call center), then I imagine you'd be extremely biased toward it because it is about to make you as an employee irrelevant. That's the fear many of you IT guys have. So I suppose your prejudice against the technology is understood.

Took you two comments to write nonsense? Well, I am managing architecture solutions, but that would be too much for you to understand. And there is nothing civil in the way you reply page after page to people who rightfully criticize your digital deity. Still: you have no idea how an AI operates and what are the boxing rules.

People don't want to use voting machines for something so simple as saving your preference when you vote just because it can be manipulated, you talk about something so complex like it is perfect.

[dan-b]

Your beliefs, as it can be seen, are pretty limited and naive. Now I add the fact you believe a call centre is an IT domain.

The point is you are unable to tell me how all of these problems can be solved by AI so far, but you are quickly able to start insulting and be vulgar which means my size of a pea brain still owns yours.

I watched the fight several times and I am not a Haney fan, but coming up with that means you are Loma's fangirl. You are probably even ****, being so aggressive when it comes to your beloved. And when you get exposed, you start bringing quotes out of the context. It's pathetic.





Took you two comments to write nonsense? Well, I am managing architecture solutions, but that would be too much for you to understand. And there is nothing civil in the way you reply page after page to people who rightfully criticize your digital deity. Still: you have no idea how an AI operates and what are the boxing rules.

People don't want to use voting machines for something so simple as saving your preference when you vote just because it can be manipulated, you talk about something so complex like it is perfect.

He's still using words like "snowflake" thinking it's a mic drop. On forums you just have to accept the ambient level of intelligence will only allow for a certain depth of analysis, with most people getting caught up on secondary or tertiary points. Rather than get frustrated by it, I prefer to find anthropological interest in it.

It's this same pool of people confident sounding charlatans with no relevant qualifications draw upon for fame and money on social media by presenting themselves as "truth seekers", "gurus", etc.

[N/A]

He's still using words like "snowflake" thinking it's a mic drop. On forums you just have to accept the ambient level of intelligence will only allow for a certain depth of analysis, with most people getting caught up on secondary or tertiary points. Rather than get frustrated by it, I prefer to find anthropological interest in it.

It's this same pool of people confident sounding charlatans with no relevant qualifications draw upon for fame and money on social media by presenting themselves as "truth seekers", "gurus", etc.

He probably generates his comments with ChatGPT.