> It's hard to believe that prosecutors can be like, "The computer says it's you, so you're guilty." Why is that hard to believe? The article very explicitly

> It's hard to believe that prosecutors can be like, "The computer says it's you, so you're guilty." Why is that hard to believe? The article very explicitly and clearly quotes a lawyer who says that is pretty much exactly what is happening. And regardless, even if there weren't a direct quote from a lawyer on this topic in the article, it still shouldn't be that hard to believe that a computer's output is going to influence the court cases at all. That's not how humans work, for one - people will include everything they 'know' about a situation when making a decision. You can't have a computer producing output and then people ignoring the output and then calling the computer system useful. If people are ignoring the output, then why have the system? And if people aren't ignoring the output, then, the (FALSE) output is being considered in decision-making of which innocent minorities are to be jailed.