3 ms·

> There are already attribution technologies that are reliable and definitive. Gonna stop you right there and ask you to back that up. It's not plausible. Espe

• CamperBob2 1y ago
  E.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33755016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33755016 from 2022. Only N-gram frequency analysis, no modern ML techniques needed. Probably time for somebody to revisit this topic with an actual model.
  • Hizonner 1y ago
    That's not even close to "reliable and definitive". I'll give you "suggestive". And it presumably has certain volume requirements.
    • CamperBob2 1y ago
      What on Earth makes you think that the people who will be using this kind of tech will care how "reliable" or how "definitive" it is? False positives aren't a bug with ICE, they're a perk of the job!
    • bilbo0s 1y ago
      Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you consider handwriting comparisons "reliable and definitive"? Because juries regularly convict people in courts based on such evidence. Maybe a better question is, what is the level of "reliable and definitive" that evidence would need to reach for you to believe it should be admissible in court? I suspect that maybe that's the misunderstanding. The level for you is much higher than maybe it is in the justice system. Which is fine. But that doesn't change the justice system. In court, the currently accepted levels are still enough. People will be free to try to refute the attributions during the proceedings if they think it will do any good. I mean the adversarial system is also part of the justice system.