3 ms·
I can think of one possible regulation that I think would produce the proper behavior incentives. Require that the system intentionally produce false positives
by mcherm 2y ago
I can think of one possible regulation that I think would produce the proper behavior incentives.
Require that the system intentionally produce false positives (selected at random) at approximately the same rate as the true positives. This means that the users of the system will be aware that any indication has only a 50% chance of being "real", and therefore can be used as an indicator to increase caution but NOT on it's own as a signal of guilt.
- exe34 2y agoWhy not just flip a coin then? It would be much cheaper?
- satellite2 2y agoI imagine the solution space is much bigger. I think it could be an actually pretty good solution for this. A bit like Chaos Monkey but for human systems. Introducing error often enough that operators don't assume it never happens.
- mcherm 2y agoIf the expected rate of known shoplifters is 1 in 10,000 then the human security team can keep a close eye on 10,000 people (one of whom is probably a shoplifter) or on just 2 people (one of whom is probably a shoplifter). The latter is much more efficient. Without the intentional false positives they could simply throw out 1 individual with no need to keep an eye on anyone at all. That's enen MORE efficient, but it utterly ruins the lives of anyone falsely identified.
- exe34 2y agothey'll just throw both out.