10 ms·

> Used by police across the United States for almost a decade, predictive policing relies on algorithms to interpret police records, analyzing arrest or parole

> Used by police across the United States for almost a decade, predictive policing relies on algorithms to interpret police records, analyzing arrest or parole data to send officers to target chronic offenders, or identifying places where crime may occur. The promise of the software made in a sales pitch or on the website, is a far cry from the reality of what such software delivers. That's fine when it's business, the cost of a mistake is a p&l hit. But here we are talking about people's lives, far stricter processes should be in place, more similar to getting approval for a new airplane or medicine. To be clear, predictive policing is replacing detectives/experts with software, like a kind of robo-policing, where decisions to investigate are generated by a system and handed to cheaper uniformed police who lack the context behind the decision support system they are now serving, because software becomes a black box. Any consumer who has ever dealt with even state-of-the-art call centers, knows that humans do a far better job at real-world operations. This is a premature application of software.

throwawaygh 6y ago
Furthermore, the stated ideals of the PD/vendor might be far different from the actual metrics used to evaluated the PD (and, therefore, the software used by the PD). You can pump up the clearance rate by practicing outright discriminatory policing. You can substantially increase revenue by targeting the poorest areas. Etc.
fsckboy 6y ago
> This is a premature application of software. maybe, but you have no idea yourself so your fear does not carry enough weight to carry that statement. It's basically like you are saying "it's too early to try Bayesian policing" when in fact Bayesian policing might be a great idea, and it was a great idea 10 years ago too. Conditional probability, if there have been a lot of rapes in a 2 block radius, do you think it might be a good idea to look in that radius? If you try that and the crimewave continues but moves 2 blocks away, do you think there might be information to glean from that? considering individual cops as bees in a hive, can individual bees make good Bayesian decisions about where to fly next? No, the information needs to be consolidated centrally. Who's better at Bayesian calculations, people or computers? I'm sure there is all sorts of defective software out there, just like there are all sorts of other lazily/cheaply produced products that don't live up to our needs. That doesn't mean it's too early to try improvements.
- riazrizvi 6y ago
  Why not take your Bayesian decision theory and make a trading system? Invest your farm, and you'll make millions with ideas like, if a stock just had two upticks, isn't it a good idea to put a little money into an upward trending stock. Not only will you come to understand decision theory better, behavioral prediction better, you'll get paid to do it, and nobody else will get hurt!
  - google234123 6y ago
    The stock market isn't the same thing...
    - greenshackle2 6y ago
      To spell it out: The stock market is anti-inductive by design. Statistical patterns that reflect market inefficiencies are supposed to disappear over time. Most problems are not anti-inductive. So yeah, "you can't even predict the stock market with your methods" is a pretty terrible argument against methods that were never meant to predict the stock market.
- astrophysician 6y ago
  Yea but you're ignoring biases in the data that are difficult or impossible to disentangle from the underlying effects. What happens when you see an area with 50% higher violent crime rate? Is that because there are a large number of crimes? Or is it because it's a neighborhood that is disproportionately targeted by police? How do you even attempt to control for that? It's not that Bayesian stats can't help or can't offer insights, it's that it can easily reinforce underlying societal biases, and then it's harder to question because "it's science" and no one has to take any responsibility for its effects.
  - medee 6y ago
    Our knowledge of crime rates doesn't come form arrest records, but rather victims surveys. Yes, we know that certain neighborhoods/populations have higher rates of crime and not just arrests.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Predictive policing does nothing more than sending policing resources where crime is more likely based on statistical models. It does not racially discriminate and it is not racist. It does not harm anyone. I feel that this is posturing and shooting the messenger. If crime is statistically higher in "black neighbourhoods" the issue will not be solved by pretending it isn't. If the technology does not work then of course there is no point spending more money on it. So, does it work or not? Here this feels political, not pragmatical.
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Everyone does something criminal from time to time. Policing A more than B will lead to more arrests at place A, increasing their crime statistics, leading to more policing ... For example drug use is about equal between white and black Americans, but since black people are more strictly policed (more frequent in traffic stops etc) they are arrested and sentenced for drug use far more often than white Americans. [0] 0: https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and...
  - thelean12 6y ago
    > Everyone does something criminal from time to time. Everyone? Maybe this would be true if you'd include non-criminal offenses (those you'd get a ticket for). Most people in their lives will probably jay-walk, or speed, or get a parking ticket, or something else in this category. But you're saying that everyone (I'll read this as "most people") will do something that would get them arrested if caught from time to time? That's an outlandish statement.
    - sib 6y ago
      Well... i haven't read the book, but it is widely cited: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ The author claims the average adults commits three Federal crimes a day.
zpallin 6y ago
I heard this recently, but I forgot where: policing software is supposed to be used to help inform decisions in addition to established investigative practices, but police are instead using the software as decision-makers which has possibly decreased accuracy in investigating crimes.
UnpossibleJim 6y ago
I have no problem with that, but why aren't these types of statistical models and curve analysis being used to deploy drive by patrols? Some of this seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water, does it not? While I agree that it's way too soon for this sort of granularity, is it too soon to have 10 block, increased presence of troubled areas helped by statistical analysis?
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  > I have no problem with that, but why aren't these types of statistical models and curve analysis being used to deploy drive by patrols? Some of this seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water, does it not? Combined with the evidence of extreme LEO abuse of power, doesn't this reinforce the idea that certain people/neighborhoods become disproportionately affected? Isn't this exactly what the past few weeks of protests have been railing against?
  - Aunche 6y ago
    If police with guns disproportionately hurt minorities that doesn't mean no police should be allowed to carry guns. You can justify drastic restrictions, but banning a tool altogether is being unnecessarily technophobic.
- jedberg 6y ago
  AI amplifies human biases. If a few racist cops decide to target a black neighborhood, and "find" a bunch of crimes, that data gets fed into the system. The system then spits out that neighborhood as high risk and assigns extra patrols there. Those patrols feel the need to justify spending all that time out there, so then they "find" crimes too. And then it just reinforces that data that that is a high risk neighborhood, making the whole thing worse. The entire system is built on decades of bad data. Step one is cleaning up the data and/or starting over.
- TallGuyShort 6y ago
  If crime being caught by a drive-by patrol is a significant way in which crime is being caught, to me that screams "victimless crimes". I break victimless laws all the time, sometimes with my police officer friends and neighbors present, sometimes on private property miles from any public roads. I never seem to get busted for it. So if 10-block patrols of "troubled areas" really saw an increase in enforcement action, then combined with the fact that America has disproportionately bad imprisonment and recidivism rates, it sounds like you're describing exactly what systemic discrimination is. You live in a bad neighborhood, so you're more likely to get caught for something, now you're on parole, now anywhere you live is a "bad neighborhood" requiring more patrols, more likely to get caught for something. Meanwhile I can live in my entirely white suburb smoking weed and my life doesn't change.
curiousgeorgio 6y ago
Hannah Fry's book, "Hello World: How to be Human in the Age of the Machine" explores this topic in a balanced and thoughtful way. Of course algorithms aren't perfect, but they are definitely useful tools that should be combined with human expertise. > humans do a far better job at real-world operations The book points to several examples (specifically in law enforcement and criminal justice) where common sense tells us this is true ("humans do a far better job"), but statistics show otherwise. Human judgement is helpful to a degree, but without tools like these algorithms provide, it's actually far worse, and subject to all kinds of biases. The question is, if a particular area statistically has more crime, does it really matter whether it's a human or an algorithm making the judgement to send officers there more often? I know it's taboo to talk about (at least in the past few weeks), but police presence overwhelmingly helps reduce crime, so lets be smart about how, when, and where to deploy more law enforcement. Let's use data-based tools to help inform our decisions, but let's also use human judgement to understand where those tools might fall short and act accordingly. In large part, that comes down to having data experts audit the tools and educate those who use them of their shortcomings.
godelski 6y ago
When we talk about this I think we really need to talk about Blackstone's Ratio [0] which was clearly an influence for the founding fathers. We're talking about peoples' lives and freedom, how highly do you value these? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
- riazrizvi 6y ago
  Thanks for introducing me to this. Personally I think instead Schrodinger's Cat is more appropriate to legal policy. Measurement effects the result. In that excessive policing, where a people are treated with extreme prejudice as likely offenders, creates more offenders. Because the incentive to be a good citizen is eroded by your social guardians.
  - godelski 6y ago
    Having a physics degree and having worked as an engineer, I do not think Schrodinger's Cat applies here (often we in the physics community are frustrated in how SC is misrepresented). Really what Blackstone's ratio is discussing is failure design. In good engineering practices we want things to fail in specific ways. So we actually design failure. For example, if you are building a skyscraper you want to design your building to collapse in on itself as to not take out other surrounding buildings. The trade-off here is that you aren't building the optimal structure, but overall you have greater safety (obviously you still have to meet base structural and safety conditions). This is a better analogy than SC, which is about the complexity of statistics and observation (which mind you doesn't need to be human nor have a consciousness). Really here we're talking about how we design failure in law. "When laws fail, what should happen?" Blackstone's has nothing to do with measurement and observation (which mean more in the QM world than what they mean in our macro world or in engineering. We physicists aren't always great at explaining. Sorry :( )
tootie 6y ago
NYC has used analytics since 1993 and it's widely credited as contributing to the incredible drop in crime. I don't buy for a second that ending these kind of programs will help anything. Certainly we can decrease brutality by sending police into areas with no conflicts but that defeats the whole purpose of policing. We need effective and aggressive law enforcement as much as ever. We need to root out the worst abusers and show them that bad behavior will be punished severely. https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/compstat-crime-reduction-management-tool https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/compstat-crime-reduction...
- dv_dt 6y ago
  Crime rates nationally dropped also during the same time - and not all areas had the same analytics. It's really not clear if the reductions were from the NYC stats or in particular "agressive" law enforcement.
  - latortuga 6y ago
    This is so utterly compelling a rebuttal that I can hardly believe the original argument was made in the first place. You can't argue that tool X led to outcome Y if everyone had the same outcome without tool X, and in fact the evidence then leads to the opposite causality: tool X is useless toward outcome Y.
  - bronson 6y ago
    True, CompStat is not at all "widely credited" with contributing to the nationwide drop in crime. Even its contribution to NYC's drop is debatable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat#Critique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat#Critique
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    not only nationally, but worldwide! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop In Germany we have no "predictive policing" to my knowledge, and even cameras and so on are used conservatively given how privacy sensitive we ware. Yet we've seen the exact same development over recent decades.
lobotryas 6y ago
You wrote a lot but pointed out none of the flaws of this tech. What’s so alarming about drawing a conclusion that more police resources need to be allocated to a place that has a history of criminal activity?
- kelnos 6y ago
  When an authoritative figure with no accountability (the software) tells you to expect bad people, you expect bad people. Even if there are no bad people, or only a few bad people, you will invent bad people because you are primed to find them. So you end up punishing people for small infractions that are occurring everywhere, even in the so-called "good" neighborhoods that you're ignoring. (Let's also recall that broken-windows policing doesn't actually work.) This just reinforces the software's opinion that all the bad behavior is occurring in these same neighborhoods. Meanwhile, cops enter the "bad" neighborhood on mental high alert, expecting a high level of trouble ("if the computer sent us here, it must be bad!"), even if there isn't much trouble at all. This creates an "us vs. them" mentality, which leads to dehumanization, and you can expect higher levels of police violence, especially of the unjustified kind.
dorgo 6y ago
>because software becomes a black box. Is the brain of a detective not a black box? >But here we are talking about people's lives, far stricter processes should be in place Yes. And I want these stricter processes to protect me from software as well as from humans. Why discriminate between software and humans?
- pdabbadabba 6y ago
  It's not perfect, but at least a detective can be deposed.
- kelnos 6y ago
  A detective can explain their reasoning and thought processes, and a judge / jury / review board / whatever can make a determination based on that whether or not the detective acted properly. Software doesn't defend itself, and often the algorithms behind it are secret. Even when they aren't, many of the models created today are just not explainable, even by those who have developed and trained them.
  - dorgo 6y ago
    If explanation, reasoning and thought processes are required then make them part of the job description. A detective who can't explain his action is unfit for the job. A software which can't explain it's recomendations is unfit for the job. Btw, explanations given to judges have nothing to do with what really happend. A detective can tell a lie and the software will pick the explanation which is most likely to be acepted by the judges. >and often the algorithms behind it are secret and the algorithms used in brains are open source?

throwawaygh 6y ago

Furthermore, the stated ideals of the PD/vendor might be far different from the actual metrics used to evaluated the PD (and, therefore, the software used by the PD). You can pump up the clearance rate by practicing outright discriminatory policing. You can substantially increase revenue by targeting the poorest areas. Etc.

fsckboy 6y ago

> This is a premature application of software. maybe, but you have no idea yourself so your fear does not carry enough weight to carry that statement. It's basically like you are saying "it's too early to try Bayesian policing" when in fact Bayesian policing might be a great idea, and it was a great idea 10 years ago too. Conditional probability, if there have been a lot of rapes in a 2 block radius, do you think it might be a good idea to look in that radius? If you try that and the crimewave continues but moves 2 blocks away, do you think there might be information to glean from that? considering individual cops as bees in a hive, can individual bees make good Bayesian decisions about where to fly next? No, the information needs to be consolidated centrally. Who's better at Bayesian calculations, people or computers? I'm sure there is all sorts of defective software out there, just like there are all sorts of other lazily/cheaply produced products that don't live up to our needs. That doesn't mean it's too early to try improvements.

riazrizvi 6y ago
Why not take your Bayesian decision theory and make a trading system? Invest your farm, and you'll make millions with ideas like, if a stock just had two upticks, isn't it a good idea to put a little money into an upward trending stock. Not only will you come to understand decision theory better, behavioral prediction better, you'll get paid to do it, and nobody else will get hurt!
- google234123 6y ago
  The stock market isn't the same thing...
  - greenshackle2 6y ago
    To spell it out: The stock market is anti-inductive by design. Statistical patterns that reflect market inefficiencies are supposed to disappear over time. Most problems are not anti-inductive. So yeah, "you can't even predict the stock market with your methods" is a pretty terrible argument against methods that were never meant to predict the stock market.
astrophysician 6y ago
Yea but you're ignoring biases in the data that are difficult or impossible to disentangle from the underlying effects. What happens when you see an area with 50% higher violent crime rate? Is that because there are a large number of crimes? Or is it because it's a neighborhood that is disproportionately targeted by police? How do you even attempt to control for that? It's not that Bayesian stats can't help or can't offer insights, it's that it can easily reinforce underlying societal biases, and then it's harder to question because "it's science" and no one has to take any responsibility for its effects.
- medee 6y ago
  Our knowledge of crime rates doesn't come form arrest records, but rather victims surveys. Yes, we know that certain neighborhoods/populations have higher rates of crime and not just arrests.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Predictive policing does nothing more than sending policing resources where crime is more likely based on statistical models. It does not racially discriminate and it is not racist. It does not harm anyone. I feel that this is posturing and shooting the messenger. If crime is statistically higher in "black neighbourhoods" the issue will not be solved by pretending it isn't. If the technology does not work then of course there is no point spending more money on it. So, does it work or not? Here this feels political, not pragmatical.

wongarsu 6y ago
Everyone does something criminal from time to time. Policing A more than B will lead to more arrests at place A, increasing their crime statistics, leading to more policing ... For example drug use is about equal between white and black Americans, but since black people are more strictly policed (more frequent in traffic stops etc) they are arrested and sentenced for drug use far more often than white Americans. [0] 0: https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and_sales_by_race_rates_of_drug_related_criminal_justice https://www.hamiltonproject.org/charts/rates_of_drug_use_and...
- thelean12 6y ago
  > Everyone does something criminal from time to time. Everyone? Maybe this would be true if you'd include non-criminal offenses (those you'd get a ticket for). Most people in their lives will probably jay-walk, or speed, or get a parking ticket, or something else in this category. But you're saying that everyone (I'll read this as "most people") will do something that would get them arrested if caught from time to time? That's an outlandish statement.
  - sib 6y ago
    Well... i haven't read the book, but it is widely cited: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ The author claims the average adults commits three Federal crimes a day.

zpallin 6y ago

I heard this recently, but I forgot where: policing software is supposed to be used to help inform decisions in addition to established investigative practices, but police are instead using the software as decision-makers which has possibly decreased accuracy in investigating crimes.

UnpossibleJim 6y ago

I have no problem with that, but why aren't these types of statistical models and curve analysis being used to deploy drive by patrols? Some of this seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water, does it not? While I agree that it's way too soon for this sort of granularity, is it too soon to have 10 block, increased presence of troubled areas helped by statistical analysis?

alpha_squared 6y ago
> I have no problem with that, but why aren't these types of statistical models and curve analysis being used to deploy drive by patrols? Some of this seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water, does it not? Combined with the evidence of extreme LEO abuse of power, doesn't this reinforce the idea that certain people/neighborhoods become disproportionately affected? Isn't this exactly what the past few weeks of protests have been railing against?
- Aunche 6y ago
  If police with guns disproportionately hurt minorities that doesn't mean no police should be allowed to carry guns. You can justify drastic restrictions, but banning a tool altogether is being unnecessarily technophobic.
jedberg 6y ago
AI amplifies human biases. If a few racist cops decide to target a black neighborhood, and "find" a bunch of crimes, that data gets fed into the system. The system then spits out that neighborhood as high risk and assigns extra patrols there. Those patrols feel the need to justify spending all that time out there, so then they "find" crimes too. And then it just reinforces that data that that is a high risk neighborhood, making the whole thing worse. The entire system is built on decades of bad data. Step one is cleaning up the data and/or starting over.
TallGuyShort 6y ago
If crime being caught by a drive-by patrol is a significant way in which crime is being caught, to me that screams "victimless crimes". I break victimless laws all the time, sometimes with my police officer friends and neighbors present, sometimes on private property miles from any public roads. I never seem to get busted for it. So if 10-block patrols of "troubled areas" really saw an increase in enforcement action, then combined with the fact that America has disproportionately bad imprisonment and recidivism rates, it sounds like you're describing exactly what systemic discrimination is. You live in a bad neighborhood, so you're more likely to get caught for something, now you're on parole, now anywhere you live is a "bad neighborhood" requiring more patrols, more likely to get caught for something. Meanwhile I can live in my entirely white suburb smoking weed and my life doesn't change.

curiousgeorgio 6y ago

Hannah Fry's book, "Hello World: How to be Human in the Age of the Machine" explores this topic in a balanced and thoughtful way. Of course algorithms aren't perfect, but they are definitely useful tools that should be combined with human expertise. > humans do a far better job at real-world operations The book points to several examples (specifically in law enforcement and criminal justice) where common sense tells us this is true ("humans do a far better job"), but statistics show otherwise. Human judgement is helpful to a degree, but without tools like these algorithms provide, it's actually far worse, and subject to all kinds of biases. The question is, if a particular area statistically has more crime, does it really matter whether it's a human or an algorithm making the judgement to send officers there more often? I know it's taboo to talk about (at least in the past few weeks), but police presence overwhelmingly helps reduce crime, so lets be smart about how, when, and where to deploy more law enforcement. Let's use data-based tools to help inform our decisions, but let's also use human judgement to understand where those tools might fall short and act accordingly. In large part, that comes down to having data experts audit the tools and educate those who use them of their shortcomings.

godelski 6y ago

When we talk about this I think we really need to talk about Blackstone's Ratio [0] which was clearly an influence for the founding fathers. We're talking about peoples' lives and freedom, how highly do you value these? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

riazrizvi 6y ago
Thanks for introducing me to this. Personally I think instead Schrodinger's Cat is more appropriate to legal policy. Measurement effects the result. In that excessive policing, where a people are treated with extreme prejudice as likely offenders, creates more offenders. Because the incentive to be a good citizen is eroded by your social guardians.
- godelski 6y ago
  Having a physics degree and having worked as an engineer, I do not think Schrodinger's Cat applies here (often we in the physics community are frustrated in how SC is misrepresented). Really what Blackstone's ratio is discussing is failure design. In good engineering practices we want things to fail in specific ways. So we actually design failure. For example, if you are building a skyscraper you want to design your building to collapse in on itself as to not take out other surrounding buildings. The trade-off here is that you aren't building the optimal structure, but overall you have greater safety (obviously you still have to meet base structural and safety conditions). This is a better analogy than SC, which is about the complexity of statistics and observation (which mind you doesn't need to be human nor have a consciousness). Really here we're talking about how we design failure in law. "When laws fail, what should happen?" Blackstone's has nothing to do with measurement and observation (which mean more in the QM world than what they mean in our macro world or in engineering. We physicists aren't always great at explaining. Sorry :( )

tootie 6y ago

NYC has used analytics since 1993 and it's widely credited as contributing to the incredible drop in crime. I don't buy for a second that ending these kind of programs will help anything. Certainly we can decrease brutality by sending police into areas with no conflicts but that defeats the whole purpose of policing. We need effective and aggressive law enforcement as much as ever. We need to root out the worst abusers and show them that bad behavior will be punished severely. https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/compstat-crime-reduction-management-tool https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/compstat-crime-reduction...

dv_dt 6y ago
Crime rates nationally dropped also during the same time - and not all areas had the same analytics. It's really not clear if the reductions were from the NYC stats or in particular "agressive" law enforcement.
- latortuga 6y ago
  This is so utterly compelling a rebuttal that I can hardly believe the original argument was made in the first place. You can't argue that tool X led to outcome Y if everyone had the same outcome without tool X, and in fact the evidence then leads to the opposite causality: tool X is useless toward outcome Y.
- bronson 6y ago
  True, CompStat is not at all "widely credited" with contributing to the nationwide drop in crime. Even its contribution to NYC's drop is debatable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat#Critique https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat#Critique
- Barrin92 6y ago
  not only nationally, but worldwide! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop In Germany we have no "predictive policing" to my knowledge, and even cameras and so on are used conservatively given how privacy sensitive we ware. Yet we've seen the exact same development over recent decades.

lobotryas 6y ago

You wrote a lot but pointed out none of the flaws of this tech. What’s so alarming about drawing a conclusion that more police resources need to be allocated to a place that has a history of criminal activity?

kelnos 6y ago
When an authoritative figure with no accountability (the software) tells you to expect bad people, you expect bad people. Even if there are no bad people, or only a few bad people, you will invent bad people because you are primed to find them. So you end up punishing people for small infractions that are occurring everywhere, even in the so-called "good" neighborhoods that you're ignoring. (Let's also recall that broken-windows policing doesn't actually work.) This just reinforces the software's opinion that all the bad behavior is occurring in these same neighborhoods. Meanwhile, cops enter the "bad" neighborhood on mental high alert, expecting a high level of trouble ("if the computer sent us here, it must be bad!"), even if there isn't much trouble at all. This creates an "us vs. them" mentality, which leads to dehumanization, and you can expect higher levels of police violence, especially of the unjustified kind.

dorgo 6y ago

>because software becomes a black box. Is the brain of a detective not a black box? >But here we are talking about people's lives, far stricter processes should be in place Yes. And I want these stricter processes to protect me from software as well as from humans. Why discriminate between software and humans?

pdabbadabba 6y ago
It's not perfect, but at least a detective can be deposed.
kelnos 6y ago
A detective can explain their reasoning and thought processes, and a judge / jury / review board / whatever can make a determination based on that whether or not the detective acted properly. Software doesn't defend itself, and often the algorithms behind it are secret. Even when they aren't, many of the models created today are just not explainable, even by those who have developed and trained them.
- dorgo 6y ago
  If explanation, reasoning and thought processes are required then make them part of the job description. A detective who can't explain his action is unfit for the job. A software which can't explain it's recomendations is unfit for the job. Btw, explanations given to judges have nothing to do with what really happend. A detective can tell a lie and the software will pick the explanation which is most likely to be acepted by the judges. >and often the algorithms behind it are secret and the algorithms used in brains are open source?