3 ms·
We used to think we could reliably use lie detectors, bite marks and finger prints to solve crime. We have learned these aren’t reliable. Why are we blindly try
by macinjosh 4y ago
We used to think we could reliably use lie detectors, bite marks and finger prints to solve crime. We have learned these aren’t reliable. Why are we blindly trying to do the same with facial recognition? I am not convinced it is any better.
- hospitalJail 4y agoThings are less black and white with AI. Things like chatGPT bother me because they don't tell you the probabilities of certainty when they have this information available. (I know there is bias too, but the probabilities would be a best case) Anyway, there is a huge difference between someone with a clear photo and you are showing up as a 99% with the next highest being 10%, vs a bunch of people around 20% chance. Not to mention, you could further triangulate with phones wifi/cell towers. Maybe multiple pieces of evidence is too much to ask for petty crime.
- mrguyorama 4y agoAn AI hallucination should NEVER be considered "evidence". As long as we cannot PROVE, ie mathematically, when an ML model is "right" or "wrong", it should never be considered "beyond a reasonable doubt" and if it ever is, that is a failure of the justice and jury system.
- fullsend 4y agoDo you think we decide to do things based on whether it works, or is right? It’s a product they’re selling. Nobody really cares about anything except making money.