3 ms·

> It seems increasingly that the concerns from the ethics branch have not come to pass at all. It is literally happening right now in the US justice system: ht

by XorNot 4y ago

> It seems increasingly that the concerns from the ethics branch have not come to pass at all. It is literally happening right now in the US justice system: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/21/137783/algorithms-criminal-justice-ai/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/01/21/137783/algorithm... There's all sorts of problems with this, but the use of "AI" to launder biased data (via IP law no less - these are proprietary blackbox algorithms being used by the justice system, owned by corporations - every part of that is antithetical to open and fair trials for citizens). The ethics branch have been sounding the alarm for a long time on this, and have been exactly right as to what the problem is.

belorn 4y ago
We have been here a long time with both fingerprints and DNA. A black box points the finger and it just happens to align with cultural bias and expectations. No one really want to change the system if there is a risk that a person people think is guilty might go free.
- XorNot 4y ago
  DNA testing is hardly a black box. The methodology, process, scientific basis and all other details are open and widely available. DNA has also cleared a lot of people who have been falsely accused.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Prosecutors use it as a black box. Defense breaks open the box.
  - belorn 4y ago
    People have ended up in jail with a death sentence based on DNA from a dog. DNA in theory is very simple. It is much harder when you got a mix of multiple unknown donors, contaminated or decayed samples. Problems quickly occur when they then apply some "computer algorithms" to puzzle together things to create a probabilistic match. It is those proprietary black box computer algorithms that are being heavily discussed in courts, not the theory of DNA. If we removed all cases that involved multiple unknown donors, contaminated or decayed samples, then DNA evidence would be much safer and open and we wouldn't need those proprietary computer algorithms. It would also significant reduce the number of cases where DNA evidence is used.

by XorNot 4y ago

belorn 4y ago

We have been here a long time with both fingerprints and DNA. A black box points the finger and it just happens to align with cultural bias and expectations. No one really want to change the system if there is a risk that a person people think is guilty might go free.

XorNot 4y ago
DNA testing is hardly a black box. The methodology, process, scientific basis and all other details are open and widely available. DNA has also cleared a lot of people who have been falsely accused.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Prosecutors use it as a black box. Defense breaks open the box.
- belorn 4y ago
  People have ended up in jail with a death sentence based on DNA from a dog. DNA in theory is very simple. It is much harder when you got a mix of multiple unknown donors, contaminated or decayed samples. Problems quickly occur when they then apply some "computer algorithms" to puzzle together things to create a probabilistic match. It is those proprietary black box computer algorithms that are being heavily discussed in courts, not the theory of DNA. If we removed all cases that involved multiple unknown donors, contaminated or decayed samples, then DNA evidence would be much safer and open and we wouldn't need those proprietary computer algorithms. It would also significant reduce the number of cases where DNA evidence is used.