3 ms·

> why not scan the database automatically (the evil, evil facial recognition), and then double check by humans? Because people tend to think "The computer said

> why not scan the database automatically (the evil, evil facial recognition), and then double check by humans? Because people tend to think "The computer said this was right, therefore it is unequivocally the correct answer." This is obviously incorrect, but is how many laypeople view it, even if instructed otherwise.

tehwebguy 6y ago
In fact that's exactly what happened. The police realized it was the wrong guy and still brought him in, he still lose 30 hours and had to post bail. I cant even imagine if two morons showed up to my house, saw that I was the wrong person, and then arrested me in front of my family anyway.
- sdsvsdgggggg 6y ago
  But then it can't possibly be the "people just believe computers" effect, because the article explicitly states the police realized the computer was wrong.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    Then in this case it's the same as phishing emails. People know it's wrong, and yet still follow along anyways. This is not necessarily a forgone conclusion, but occurs to often to dismiss.
    - sdsvsdgggggg 6y ago
      Nothing indicates that it is specific to algorithmic facial recognition. Actual humans make mistakes identifying suspects all the time. At the very least, the article should address that and compare the reactions, to prove people are more likely to act despite knowing better when the id was made by a computer.
      - Shared404 6y ago
        A reasonable point.
sdsvsdgggggg 6y ago
Then people have to relearn, but it is not the fault of the algorithm. False identifications by humans happen a lot, too. I think it used to be an especially big issue for black people. Like if a black person commits a crime, and police does a lineup for a witness to identify the culprit, they would just point to the one black person in the lineup and think they did it. Surely computers can at least do as good as that, probably better.

tehwebguy 6y ago

In fact that's exactly what happened. The police realized it was the wrong guy and still brought him in, he still lose 30 hours and had to post bail. I cant even imagine if two morons showed up to my house, saw that I was the wrong person, and then arrested me in front of my family anyway.

sdsvsdgggggg 6y ago
But then it can't possibly be the "people just believe computers" effect, because the article explicitly states the police realized the computer was wrong.
- Shared404 6y ago
  Then in this case it's the same as phishing emails. People know it's wrong, and yet still follow along anyways. This is not necessarily a forgone conclusion, but occurs to often to dismiss.
  - sdsvsdgggggg 6y ago
    Nothing indicates that it is specific to algorithmic facial recognition. Actual humans make mistakes identifying suspects all the time. At the very least, the article should address that and compare the reactions, to prove people are more likely to act despite knowing better when the id was made by a computer.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      A reasonable point.

sdsvsdgggggg 6y ago

Then people have to relearn, but it is not the fault of the algorithm. False identifications by humans happen a lot, too. I think it used to be an especially big issue for black people. Like if a black person commits a crime, and police does a lineup for a witness to identify the culprit, they would just point to the one black person in the lineup and think they did it. Surely computers can at least do as good as that, probably better.