5 ms·

"“We understand how upsetting this was for the individual that was searched as well as the other students who witnessed the incident,” the principal wrote. “Our

"“We understand how upsetting this was for the individual that was searched as well as the other students who witnessed the incident,” the principal wrote. “Our counselors will provide direct support to the students who were involved.”" Make them pay money for false positives instead of direct support and counselling. This technology is not ready for production, it should be in a lab not in public buildings such as schools.

akoboldfrying 1y ago
> Make them pay money for false positives instead of direct support and counselling. Agreed. > This technology is not ready for production No one wants stuff like this to happen, but nearly all technologies have risks. I don't consider that a single false positive outweighs all of its benefits; it would depend on the rates of false and true positives, and the (subjective) value of each (both high in this case, though I'd say preventing 1 shooting is unequivocally of more value than preventing 1 innocent person being unnecessarily held at gunpoint).
- Zigurd 1y ago
  In the US cops kill more people than terrorists. As long as you quantifying values take that into account.
  - akoboldfrying 1y ago
    I get that people are uncomfortable with explicit quantification of stuff like this, but removing the explicitness doesn't remove the quantification, it just makes it implicit. If, say, we allow people to drive cars even though car accidents kill n people each year, then we are implicitly quantifying that the value of the extra productivity society gets by being able to get places quickly in a car is worth the deaths of those people. In your example, if terrorists were the only people killing people in the US, and police (a) were the only means of stopping them, and (b) did not benefit society in any other way, the equation would be simple: get rid of the police. There wouldn't need to be any value judgements, because everything cancels out. But in practice it's not that easy, since the vast majority of killings in the US occur at the hands of people who are neither police nor terrorists, and police play a role in reducing those killings too.
- neuralRiot 1y ago
  I think I’ve said this too many times already but the core problem here and with the “AI craze” is that nobody realy wants to solve problems, what they want is a marketable product and AI seems to be the magic wrench that fits in all the nuts and since most of the people doesn’t really knows how it works and what are its limitations the happily buy the “magic dust”.
  - akoboldfrying 1y ago
    > nobody realy wants to solve problems, what they want is a marketable product I agree, but this isn't specific to AI -- it's what makes capitalism work to the extent that it does. Nobody wants to clean a toilet or harvest wheat or do most things that society needs someone to do, they want to get paid.
    - neuralRiot 1y ago
      Absolutely, but I don’t believe the responsibility falls in the hands of those looking to make a profit but rather into of those in charge of regulating how those profits should be made, after all thieves want to make a profit too but we don’t allow them to, at least not if it’s not a couple of millions.
  - shemtay 1y ago
    teenagers carrying and using guns in baltimore actually is a real problem
    - evanelias 1y ago
      Sure, but this school is in the county, outside city limits. In my experience, what passes for "sketchy" in Essex MD is roughly "random dude selling pit beef out of a barrel in front of his house", i.e. fairly benign. But it's admittedly been a long while since I lived in Baltimore.
dekken_ 1y ago
> Make them pay money It already cost money paying for the time and resources to be misappropriated. There needs to be resignations, or jail time.
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
  The taxpayers collectively pay the money, the officers involved don't (except for that small fraction of their income they pay in taxes that increase as a result).
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
xbar 1y ago
Charge the superintendent with swatting. Decision-maker accountability is the only thing that halts bad decision-making.
- nomel 1y ago
  > Charge the superintendent with swatting. This assumes no human verification of the flagged video. Maybe the bag DID look like a gun. We'll never know, because modern journalism has no interest in such things. They obtained the required emotional quotes and moved on.
  - joe_the_user 1y ago
    So, are you implying that if humans surveil kids at random and call the SWAT team if a frame in a video seems to imply one kid has a gun, that then it's all OK? Those journalists, just trying to get (unjustified, dude, unjustified!!) emotes from kids being mistakenly held at gun point, boy they are terrible.... They're just covering up how necessary those mistakes are in our pursuit of teh crime...
    - nomel 1y ago
      If security sees someone carrying a gun in surveillance video, on a gun free campus, and policy verify it, then yes, that's justified, by all aspects of the law. There are countless examples of surveillance of illegal activity resulting in police action. Are you suggesting it's not?
      - stickfigure 1y ago
        Nobody saw a gun in a video. Nobody even saw something that looked like a gun. A chip bag, at most, is going to produce a bulge. No reasonable human is going to look at a kid with a random bulge in their pocket and assume gun. Otherwise we might as well start sending our kids to school naked; this is the kind of paranoia that brought us the McMartin Preschool nonsense.
joe_the_user 1y ago
I assume they were provide gift cards good for psychotherapy sessions.
russdill 1y ago
I wonder how much more likely it is to get a false positive from a black student.
- vee-kay 1y ago
  The question is whether that Doritos carrying kid is still alive, instead of being shot at by the violent cops (who typically do nothing when an actual shooter is roaming a school on a killing spree; apropos the Uvalve school shooting, when hundreds of cops milled around the school in full body armor, refusing to engage the shooter on killing spree inside the school, and they even prevented the parents from going inside to rescue their kids) based on a false positive about a gun (and the cops must have figured that it's likely a false positive, because it is info from AI surveillance), only because he is white?
- kelnos 1y ago
  Before clicking on the article, I kinda assumed the student was black. I wouldn't be surprised if the AI model they're using has race-related biases. On the contrary, I would be surprised if it didn't.

akoboldfrying 1y ago

> Make them pay money for false positives instead of direct support and counselling. Agreed. > This technology is not ready for production No one wants stuff like this to happen, but nearly all technologies have risks. I don't consider that a single false positive outweighs all of its benefits; it would depend on the rates of false and true positives, and the (subjective) value of each (both high in this case, though I'd say preventing 1 shooting is unequivocally of more value than preventing 1 innocent person being unnecessarily held at gunpoint).

Zigurd 1y ago
In the US cops kill more people than terrorists. As long as you quantifying values take that into account.
- akoboldfrying 1y ago
  I get that people are uncomfortable with explicit quantification of stuff like this, but removing the explicitness doesn't remove the quantification, it just makes it implicit. If, say, we allow people to drive cars even though car accidents kill n people each year, then we are implicitly quantifying that the value of the extra productivity society gets by being able to get places quickly in a car is worth the deaths of those people. In your example, if terrorists were the only people killing people in the US, and police (a) were the only means of stopping them, and (b) did not benefit society in any other way, the equation would be simple: get rid of the police. There wouldn't need to be any value judgements, because everything cancels out. But in practice it's not that easy, since the vast majority of killings in the US occur at the hands of people who are neither police nor terrorists, and police play a role in reducing those killings too.
neuralRiot 1y ago
I think I’ve said this too many times already but the core problem here and with the “AI craze” is that nobody realy wants to solve problems, what they want is a marketable product and AI seems to be the magic wrench that fits in all the nuts and since most of the people doesn’t really knows how it works and what are its limitations the happily buy the “magic dust”.
- akoboldfrying 1y ago
  > nobody realy wants to solve problems, what they want is a marketable product I agree, but this isn't specific to AI -- it's what makes capitalism work to the extent that it does. Nobody wants to clean a toilet or harvest wheat or do most things that society needs someone to do, they want to get paid.
  - neuralRiot 1y ago
    Absolutely, but I don’t believe the responsibility falls in the hands of those looking to make a profit but rather into of those in charge of regulating how those profits should be made, after all thieves want to make a profit too but we don’t allow them to, at least not if it’s not a couple of millions.
- shemtay 1y ago
  teenagers carrying and using guns in baltimore actually is a real problem
  - evanelias 1y ago
    Sure, but this school is in the county, outside city limits. In my experience, what passes for "sketchy" in Essex MD is roughly "random dude selling pit beef out of a barrel in front of his house", i.e. fairly benign. But it's admittedly been a long while since I lived in Baltimore.

dekken_ 1y ago

> Make them pay money It already cost money paying for the time and resources to be misappropriated. There needs to be resignations, or jail time.

SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
The taxpayers collectively pay the money, the officers involved don't (except for that small fraction of their income they pay in taxes that increase as a result).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

xbar 1y ago

Charge the superintendent with swatting. Decision-maker accountability is the only thing that halts bad decision-making.

nomel 1y ago
> Charge the superintendent with swatting. This assumes no human verification of the flagged video. Maybe the bag DID look like a gun. We'll never know, because modern journalism has no interest in such things. They obtained the required emotional quotes and moved on.
- joe_the_user 1y ago
  So, are you implying that if humans surveil kids at random and call the SWAT team if a frame in a video seems to imply one kid has a gun, that then it's all OK? Those journalists, just trying to get (unjustified, dude, unjustified!!) emotes from kids being mistakenly held at gun point, boy they are terrible.... They're just covering up how necessary those mistakes are in our pursuit of teh crime...
  - nomel 1y ago
    If security sees someone carrying a gun in surveillance video, on a gun free campus, and policy verify it, then yes, that's justified, by all aspects of the law. There are countless examples of surveillance of illegal activity resulting in police action. Are you suggesting it's not?
    - stickfigure 1y ago
      Nobody saw a gun in a video. Nobody even saw something that looked like a gun. A chip bag, at most, is going to produce a bulge. No reasonable human is going to look at a kid with a random bulge in their pocket and assume gun. Otherwise we might as well start sending our kids to school naked; this is the kind of paranoia that brought us the McMartin Preschool nonsense.

joe_the_user 1y ago

I assume they were provide gift cards good for psychotherapy sessions.

russdill 1y ago

I wonder how much more likely it is to get a false positive from a black student.

vee-kay 1y ago
The question is whether that Doritos carrying kid is still alive, instead of being shot at by the violent cops (who typically do nothing when an actual shooter is roaming a school on a killing spree; apropos the Uvalve school shooting, when hundreds of cops milled around the school in full body armor, refusing to engage the shooter on killing spree inside the school, and they even prevented the parents from going inside to rescue their kids) based on a false positive about a gun (and the cops must have figured that it's likely a false positive, because it is info from AI surveillance), only because he is white?
kelnos 1y ago
Before clicking on the article, I kinda assumed the student was black. I wouldn't be surprised if the AI model they're using has race-related biases. On the contrary, I would be surprised if it didn't.