3 ms·
We will see backlash like this, and justifiably so, as we continue to iterate AI/ML as product. A better use of the tech, though perhaps below the justificatio
by tomrod 2y ago
We will see backlash like this, and justifiably so, as we continue to iterate AI/ML as product.
A better use of the tech, though perhaps below the justification threshold for purchasing it as SpotShotter, would be to use it as confirmatory forensics after an instance versus investigating every shot.
Reasoning: if a loud noise happens and no one calls the cops, no harm no foul. But if someone calls the cops or a crime with a weapon is noted, such a murder, wounding, or other violence, this could help narrow down the timeframe the shot may have been observed.
- chimeracoder 2y agoYou've got it completely backwards. If you have a piece of evidence with a high signal-to-noise ratio, you don't validate that with a mechanism that has an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. That's completely scientifically and statistically unsound.
- namaria 2y agoWhat GP is implying is using the high signal to noise ratio evidence to give you a better way to screen the low signal to noise ration evidence and check for extra information. Not using the former to 'validate' the latter.
- user3939382 2y agoI was hoping the backlash would be from NYPD installing a network of microphones on sidewalks all over the city. I don’t care what they’re using them for it’s creepy.
- tomrod 2y agoYeah, hypersurveillance is also bad!
- jml7c5 2y agoShotSpotter isn't really related to current AI/ML products. The company has been operating for almost 30 years.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y agoCorrect, it isn’t AI. It is however massively overrated, has questionable contract practices, and is a false alert generator… for over 30 years.
- tomrod 2y agoIt's filling the same role people are wanting to use AI to fill, automation of information collection and identification of signal in the noise.