4 ms·
Very interesting - thanks for giving us the benefit of your experience. In the case of store workers, it's not obvious what other checking they could do. The o
by ajb 2y ago
Very interesting - thanks for giving us the benefit of your experience.
In the case of store workers, it's not obvious what other checking they could do. The only reasonable use I can see is for them to keep an eye on the person that has been flagged. But I expect that the entire purpose of this tech is to reduce the number of store guards they need to pay, so they are likely not to have the manpower. If the policy is 'don't let them in the store', I don't see how a store worker can avoid making false accusations.
- namaria 2y agoThere's something fundamentally wrong with these probabilistic analysis tools being sold currently as "artificial intelligence". The nuance in "probabilistic" is quickly lost and the output is taken as deterministic. Any piece of software that puts out data that is acted upon should have clear disclaimers attached. Calling it "intelligent" is irresponsible.
- tomNth 2y ago"Calling it "intelligent" is irresponsible." How so ? If a human of animal behaving the same were to be describe as intelligent, than so are those systems.
- namaria 2y agoHow so? People take it at face value and harm other people based on its outputs, as per the article linked. > If a human of animal behaving the same were to be describe as intelligent, than so are those systems. I cannot parse this sentence. Behaving the same as what? What bearing do claims of human or animal intelligence have on me stating that generating liability by trusting probabilistic analysis, and actively harming people, by calling software "intelligent", is not responsible behavior?
- exe34 2y agowe can call it frediness, but the problem isn't what it's called, the problem is that the profit motive only works when there's competition. if there were several shops nearby and one of them started rejecting 80% of customers based on frediness, they'd go out of business and the others who prefer having a human guard would prosper. if it's the only shop within a 10 mile radius, and it only flags out 1% of innocent people as shoplifters, then the profit motive doesn't provide the balancing force. that's what regulation is for.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tomNth 2y agoThe bearing is on the claim that calling software "intelligent" have anything to do with trusting or liability. Dumb or not, no one is supposed to blindly trust it.