5 ms·

On the contrary, computers follow their programming. They don't cut corners to make their workload easier, they don't make more mistakes when they are overworke

by jjk166 4y ago

On the contrary, computers follow their programming. They don't cut corners to make their workload easier, they don't make more mistakes when they are overworked and tired. When you don't have enough resources to make the computer follow it's programming, you also don't have the resources to use the computer. Keeping things manual means you're adding in all the errors that are unavoidable with humans, and limiting use by constraining resources introduces even more errors. Appropriate oversight is an additional cost on top of the labor you already can't afford, running without adequate oversight is not only possible but strongly selected for. Furthermore, whereas with computers you can theoretically go through their programming and say "ah this is why a crime was predicted" and the model which generated that insight could be potentially challenged and changed, with a human you'll never really know if there is an issue, and your options for dealing with issues are incredibly limited. If you can't trust a computer to do math, you certainly can't trust a human to do it.

BlueTemplar 4y ago
More efficiency isn't necessarily better. There's a balance of power, and for instance, allowing different databases to be linked increases the power of those with access. Exponentially. That's why it's heavily limited. And the new programs using neural networks, if allowed to be used, would bring with them even more issues coming from their black box behavior, which would encourage a lack of accountability (doubtful that programmers would volunteer to be directly responsible for all their mistakes !)
- jjk166 4y ago
  The argument has nothing to do with efficiency, except insofar as human inefficiency makes abuse of power more likely. The problem is there isn't fundamentally a balance of power, having unlinked databases doesn't allow the "good" databases to shield you from the "bad" databases, it just increases the potential for errors to arise. I'll amend my previous closing argument, if you wouldn't trust someone with a knife, why would you trust them with a whole cutlery set? We're not trying to make the system more efficient, we are trying to eliminate potential failure points, which every human involved is. If it is more efficient, that's just gravy on top. If you are really concerned with who is in a position of power, consider the difference between a small team of maybe a dozen people working behind closed doors versus software which could be made as public as the laws it is meant to uphold and evaluated by anyone on earth. Any issue, be it from malice or incompetence, would be plain as day. And if you don't like black box neural networks, I have some terrible news about the human brain. There is no technical reason why the creators of an AI should be any less accountable for a flaw in their product than the producers of any other technology. This wouldn't generally be the programmers themselves, but it would be the companies employing those programmers. If a car company for example becomes aware of a serious flaw in their product and they don't take appropriate steps to fix it, they're liable. Likewise for most things. The creators of these systems don't need to volunteer to be responsible for how they perform, they are compelled. There have been countless tools added to law enforcement's utility belt over the centuries like radar guns and dna matching, and every legal system in the world has dealt with evaluating their efficacy and potential for bias. There is nothing about an AI that makes it incompatible with these existing safeguards.
  - msandford 4y ago
    I believe that if a crime is sufficiently bad that we should prosecute for it, it absolutely merits the use of scarce resources. And if we can't muster up the resources to get humans to do the investigation, accusing, trying, etc it must not be that bad of a crime. Once algorithmic prosecution is enabled, we could easily see 100x as many accusations happen. That's the blessing of automation. 100x is actually a low bar. Many automations make millions more things possible. I don't think it would be a good world with a million times as much law enforcement with basically all of it automated.
    - jjk166 4y ago
      Again, you're fundamentally missing what I'm saying. No one is arguing that humans require too many resources. I am saying that a computer, even if it were just as resource intensive as a human program, is a fundamentally preferable option. We do not live in a world where the more crime there is the more resources are available to deal with it. If anything, reality is the opposite: there is a vicious cycle where lack of government resources leads to crime and crime decreases available resources. It's trivially simple to imagine a scenario where crime gets so bad that we stop dealing with certain violations to conserve resources to deal with bigger issues. But that's irrelevant. What matters is that each and every person involved is a potential source of issues. Anyone can be tired, or scared, or distracted, or biased. This is not due to inadequate resources, though that may exacerbate the problem. This is the human condition - we are fallible beings. And in situations like this mistakes can ruin or end lives. Humans need oversight because of this fallibility, but the overseers are likewise fallible. The larger an organization is, the more places there are for something to fall through the cracks and for a mistake to go unnoticed and unresolved. Algorithmic prosecution might make accusations 100x cheaper, but you won't have 100x more accusations because there isn't 100x more crime to accuse people of. You're not going to see a massive spike in murders or bank robberies because of this algorithm, and the crime never having occurred is a really solid alibi. Sure if it's easier to investigate crimes then maybe some of the crimes we are currently tolerating because we simply don't have the manpower to deal with them would get investigated, but if we're ignoring a crime because we think the crime is not an issue, we can certainly keep ignoring it. The difference is the choice is made by society, not forced upon it by circumstance. You fear more law enforcement because you are plainly aware of how bad current law enforcement can be. This isn't more law enforcement, this is better law enforcement.

by jjk166 4y ago

BlueTemplar 4y ago

More efficiency isn't necessarily better. There's a balance of power, and for instance, allowing different databases to be linked increases the power of those with access. Exponentially. That's why it's heavily limited. And the new programs using neural networks, if allowed to be used, would bring with them even more issues coming from their black box behavior, which would encourage a lack of accountability (doubtful that programmers would volunteer to be directly responsible for all their mistakes !)

jjk166 4y ago
The argument has nothing to do with efficiency, except insofar as human inefficiency makes abuse of power more likely. The problem is there isn't fundamentally a balance of power, having unlinked databases doesn't allow the "good" databases to shield you from the "bad" databases, it just increases the potential for errors to arise. I'll amend my previous closing argument, if you wouldn't trust someone with a knife, why would you trust them with a whole cutlery set? We're not trying to make the system more efficient, we are trying to eliminate potential failure points, which every human involved is. If it is more efficient, that's just gravy on top. If you are really concerned with who is in a position of power, consider the difference between a small team of maybe a dozen people working behind closed doors versus software which could be made as public as the laws it is meant to uphold and evaluated by anyone on earth. Any issue, be it from malice or incompetence, would be plain as day. And if you don't like black box neural networks, I have some terrible news about the human brain. There is no technical reason why the creators of an AI should be any less accountable for a flaw in their product than the producers of any other technology. This wouldn't generally be the programmers themselves, but it would be the companies employing those programmers. If a car company for example becomes aware of a serious flaw in their product and they don't take appropriate steps to fix it, they're liable. Likewise for most things. The creators of these systems don't need to volunteer to be responsible for how they perform, they are compelled. There have been countless tools added to law enforcement's utility belt over the centuries like radar guns and dna matching, and every legal system in the world has dealt with evaluating their efficacy and potential for bias. There is nothing about an AI that makes it incompatible with these existing safeguards.
- msandford 4y ago
  I believe that if a crime is sufficiently bad that we should prosecute for it, it absolutely merits the use of scarce resources. And if we can't muster up the resources to get humans to do the investigation, accusing, trying, etc it must not be that bad of a crime. Once algorithmic prosecution is enabled, we could easily see 100x as many accusations happen. That's the blessing of automation. 100x is actually a low bar. Many automations make millions more things possible. I don't think it would be a good world with a million times as much law enforcement with basically all of it automated.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Again, you're fundamentally missing what I'm saying. No one is arguing that humans require too many resources. I am saying that a computer, even if it were just as resource intensive as a human program, is a fundamentally preferable option. We do not live in a world where the more crime there is the more resources are available to deal with it. If anything, reality is the opposite: there is a vicious cycle where lack of government resources leads to crime and crime decreases available resources. It's trivially simple to imagine a scenario where crime gets so bad that we stop dealing with certain violations to conserve resources to deal with bigger issues. But that's irrelevant. What matters is that each and every person involved is a potential source of issues. Anyone can be tired, or scared, or distracted, or biased. This is not due to inadequate resources, though that may exacerbate the problem. This is the human condition - we are fallible beings. And in situations like this mistakes can ruin or end lives. Humans need oversight because of this fallibility, but the overseers are likewise fallible. The larger an organization is, the more places there are for something to fall through the cracks and for a mistake to go unnoticed and unresolved. Algorithmic prosecution might make accusations 100x cheaper, but you won't have 100x more accusations because there isn't 100x more crime to accuse people of. You're not going to see a massive spike in murders or bank robberies because of this algorithm, and the crime never having occurred is a really solid alibi. Sure if it's easier to investigate crimes then maybe some of the crimes we are currently tolerating because we simply don't have the manpower to deal with them would get investigated, but if we're ignoring a crime because we think the crime is not an issue, we can certainly keep ignoring it. The difference is the choice is made by society, not forced upon it by circumstance. You fear more law enforcement because you are plainly aware of how bad current law enforcement can be. This isn't more law enforcement, this is better law enforcement.