3 ms·
>> It's not a useful assist if it's misinformation. You're making a typical mistake by thinking these systems will not improve over time as they get more train
by m0zg 7y ago
>> It's not a useful assist if it's misinformation.
You're making a typical mistake by thinking these systems will not improve over time as they get more training data. They will, and given enough time, data, and elbow grease they will eventually reach superhuman levels of accuracy. But for them to get there they need to be exposed to the world under realistic circumstances.
- d1zzy 7y agoSo what we need is a restriction of the officer being able to see the (potentially faulty) results, not a restriction of having facial recognition enabled?
- m0zg 7y agoSerious answer: from the perspective of a deep learning researcher (me), the right answer would be to surface some metric of probability, and have the officer confirm, upon completing secondary validation, whether the prediction was right or wrong. With a few thousand officers doing this over the course of a year (collecting potentially a million training samples or more), the accuracy figures will go up tremendously, and the probability estimates will become far more accurate. That's assuming that the body cam manufacturer has a capable deep learning research team, though, which might not be the case.
- traderjane 7y agoThen let another community pay the R&D costs of misidentification of criminals while the tech community tries to grease the joints.