2 ms·

You have other measures than prison. You can still have enhanced vigilance without enhanced annoyance and mistakes. There's often a superior choice lurking th

You have other measures than prison. You can still have enhanced vigilance without enhanced annoyance and mistakes. There's often a superior choice lurking that nobody is thinking about, sometimes expensive, sometimes not, seemingly unrelated to such optimization. This is why ML is not intelligence, it cannot find new solutions you're not already looking for. The main problem of the judicial and police system is it tries to be procedurally fair and still fails at it anyway.

bsanr2 7y ago
I'd counter that in many cases it doesn't even try to be fair. It privileges the ability to craft an argument over bare facts, which immediately privileges those who can afford professional representation. At the core of the fear of a surveillance state isn't simply the loss of privacy (which in and of itself could be worth the accuracy it would bring to judicial proceedings), but the fact that it would just bolster the ability of skilled narrative-builders to pull the most advantageous facts out of context and twist them to their whims.