3 ms·
You seem right to say it is not a case of AI falsely accusing someone based on pure randomness, but that is no reason to dismiss what happened here. The most tr
by mannykannot 5y ago
You seem right to say it is not a case of AI falsely accusing someone based on pure randomness, but that is no reason to dismiss what happened here. The most troubling aspects are that SIS added what amounts to false information to its databases, fabricated multiple false cases against Bah, claimed to have evidence it did not have, used it to detain him and hand him over to the Paramus police for arrest (who failed in their own due diligence, partly on account of this false information), and then attempted to hide what it had done, including, apparently, destroying evidence - evidence against itself, not Bah.
- handmodel 5y agoIf a DNA test identified the wrong suspect because someone mixed up the names when entering them into a database I wouldn't say that there was "unreliable DNA tech". Maybe other people didn't read the headline as I did. But if I hadn't bothered to click on it I 100% was just going to assume it was because the tech itself was unreliable and they picked out someone who looked like him. Perhaps if I wasn't read up on the debate around this I wouldn't have thought that - but I imagine most people would assume this with confidence if they saw the headline on their feed.
- mannykannot 5y agoYou are making a valid, but relatively small, point about how the article is written. People who think they have learned something important from a headline without verifying what they think they have learned by applying critical analysis to the article are likely to be misinformed in all sorts of ways regardless of what they do read. Note that we are both talking about other people - we, of course, are not like that!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]