3 ms·
There is absolutely logic in it. If you get falsely arrested (not even convicted), you can lose your job, get deported, spend thousands trying to clear your na
by Pfhreak 6y ago
There is absolutely logic in it.
If you get falsely arrested (not even convicted), you can lose your job, get deported, spend thousands trying to clear your name, or even just get shot by the police.
AI tech will have false positives.
Technology that allows officers to screen many many people at scale will result in false positive arrests (or police violence) that would not have happened otherwise.
Therefore, this technology will ruin lives. This is clearly logical.
You might be ok with that cost, I'm not. But that's a different line of debate. I believe the idea that it is a net improvement is the idea that is unbelievable and unfounded given the current trends in AI. What gives you confidence?
- throwawaysea 6y agoAgain there is a human in the loop to validate a potential match, before officers get dispatched. And if the dispatcher doesn't do it, we can easily just have the police officer responding to validate the match between the surveillance photo and a known photo of the suspect. Humans already have a false positive rate as part of existing policing procedures, and facial recognition doesn’t make the rate worse as long as it retains a human validating the AI’s match. Also, almost every state has a process to expunge arrests even IF you were convicted (of something minor). As for why I’m confident about net improvement - it’s because the amount of true positive arrests (and subsequent convictions) will be far greater than false positive arrests. Therefore relative to the status quo it’ll be a net positive of criminals facing consequences, victims being compensated or getting closure, subsequent reduction in crime through deterrence, etc.