Fundamentally flawed argument. Humans write the rules as it's a human sport. But keep humans away from implementing them as that is going to lead to inaccuracy and error. I'm currently testing AI marking software for English A-level coursework exam papers. That really is very subjective. Far more so than the rules of football. But the AI is simply trained to make sound judgment. And the error rates from it doing marking are significantly (massively) lower than asking a trained human examiner to do the same thing. And this is published data. A team of hundred examiners gives X amount of variation of what the agreed score is, and these scores are then measured against what the chief examiner's score would be. The AI then has a go. Repeat this for hundreds of scripts. The AI assesses instantly and with massively lower variation and error than the humans can, and that's with a human spending up to an hour anaylsing the script. This is happening right now. AI is more accurate and reliable at subjective judgement than humans are. That's not a debate.
So the 'subjective' argument holds no weight. AI already consistently makes more accurate decisions, in a far quicker time than humans ever will. You just have to train the AI to do it. Companies are already doing it with straightforward things like written text. Video analysis will be here soon. We just need a governing body of football willing to get it right.
If for every single subjective decision on the pitch, you got an instant response and a detailed paragraph explaining why that was the decision made, that would do away with any of the nonsense we have right now with PGMOL and referees always in the spotlight for being ****.
Come on and 'fess up. Who made an AI chatbot and registered it as this sock account?
