5 ms·
I think it is about computers being wrong. If a system that could be used to criminally convict someone of a serious crime is in place it should be held to a s
by vablings 10mo ago
I think it is about computers being wrong.
If a system that could be used to criminally convict someone of a serious crime is in place it should be held to a similar standard of systems such as flight computers or self-driving cars.
We must verify that the evaluations it makes are correct and are based on true actuals not errors. As modern software becomes more ingrained into our live, we will have to have to clamp down on the wild west of software to protect people because the consequences could be dire.
We already do the same thing with the gas and electric in our homes so why does that not extended to ALPRs and auditing systems ect.
- lesuorac 10mo agoThe issue isn't that the computer was wrong though. The issue was that it was wrong and nobody cared. For systems with high standards like aircraft there's nothing that stops somebody from say removing a door and then just not recording that it happened. It doesn't matter how many checklists you have for aircraft if they're not followed. It just doesn't matter what verification processes you have if they're not followed. The court rule does not affect this.