11 ms·
It’s a tool. Used incorrectly will lead to errors. Just like a hammer, used incorrectly could hit the users finger.
by garyfirestorm 6mo ago
It’s a tool. Used incorrectly will lead to errors. Just like a hammer, used incorrectly could hit the users finger.
- happytoexplain 6mo agoThere is enormous variability in how hard a tool is to use correctly, how likely it is to go wrong, and how severe the consequences are. AI has a wide range on all those variables because its use cases vary so widely compared to a hammer. The use case here is police facial recognition. Not hitting nails. The parent wasn't saying "AI is a liability" with no context.
- mikkupikku 6mo agoWhen somebody uses a tool to hurt somebody, they need to be held accountable. If I smack you with a hammer, that needs to be prosecuted. Using AI is no different. The problem here is incidental to the tool; it was done by the cops and therefore nobody will be held accountable.
- tovej 6mo agoSystems are also a tool. Whoever institutes and helps build the system that systematically results in harm is also responsible. That would be the vendors, the system planners, and the institutions that greenlit this. It would also include the larger financial tech circle that is trying to drive large scale AI adoption. Like Peter Thiel, who sees technology as an "alternative to politics". I.e. a way to circumvent democracy [1] [1] https://stavroulapabst.substack.com/p/techxgeopolitics-18-technology-as https://stavroulapabst.substack.com/p/techxgeopolitics-18-te...
- fc417fc802 6mo agoNonsense. The manufacturer, distributor, and vendor of a hammer are not liable for its misuse. We already litigated and then legislated this regarding guns in the US. As much as I detest Clearview and Thiel the fault for this incident falls squarely on the justice system.
- tovej 6mo agoYour first paragraph conflates the system with the tool. Please at least parse what I wrote before you respond. You are also conflating legality and morality. The US gun industry being good at lobbying has no bearing on whether an industry that enables mass school shootings is accountable or not. I mean it clearly is. Just compare gun deaths in the US to any civilized nation and you'll see that gun control is the moral and sane approach. A hammer/gun is not the same as the wider hammer/gun industrial system, and the societal systems it is a part of. The justice system is a part of that. So even though you say you disagree, somehow you still agree?
- fc417fc802 6mo ago> Your first paragraph conflates the system with the tool. No, it responds to the claim you made. You asserted that systems are also tools and attributed fault on that basis. Perhaps at least reread your own comment before condescending. > You are also conflating legality and morality. Also incorrect. I understood you to be claiming tool vendors to bear both legal and moral responsibility; perhaps I misunderstood. Regardless, my position is that tool vendors bear neither of those more or less unconditionally. The only way a tool vendor can become responsible in any sense (IMO) is if they knowingly and intentionally facilitate a particular outcome. The manufacturer of a hammer, gun, or AI facial recognition system is never at fault for what the user does with it unless they actively encouraged that particular use.
- tovej 6mo agoThe AI companies are very obviously facilitating particular outcomes.
- suzzer99 6mo agoDynamite is a tool. But we don't hand it out to anyone who wants to play with it.
- mikkupikku 6mo agoWe used to until quite recently. Anybody could buy dynamite at the hardware store. We had to end this because of criminals using it to hurt people.
- jqpabc123 6mo agoLook for AI to follow a similar trajectory over time.
- GaryBluto 6mo agoImpossible at this point. You cannot download dynamite.
- mikkupikku 6mo agoYes, regulation is inevitable.
- jfengel 6mo agoRegulation is impossible. The AI barons literally control the federal government, so not even state regulations get tried.
- jfengel 6mo agoExcept this time the criminals are police.
- AngryData 6mo agoThey are far more often than anyone wants to admit. That's how we got 25% of the world's prison population.
- skeeter2020 6mo agoAI feels closer to a firearm than a hammer when accessing law enforcement's ability to quickly do massive, unrecoverable harm.
- jqpabc123 6mo agoUsed incorrectly will lead to errors. Only one small little problem --- there is no way to tell if you are using it "correctly". The only way to be sure is to not use it. Using it basically boils down to, "Do you feel lucky?". The Fargo police didn't get lucky in this case. And now the liability kicks in.
- jfengel 6mo agoNow the "qualified" immunity kicks in.
- jqpabc123 6mo agoWe will find out. But relying on AI is likely to cost the city of Fargo in one way or another. They say they have already stopped using AI and returned to good old fashioned human investigation. https://www.lawlegalhub.com/how-much-is-a-wrongful-arrest-lawsuit-worth/ https://www.lawlegalhub.com/how-much-is-a-wrongful-arrest-la...
- nkrisc 6mo agoSome basic investigatory police work (the kind they did before AI) would have revealed the mistake before an innocent woman’s life was destroyed.
- jqpabc123 6mo agoYes. But doing the investigation negates much of the incentive for using AI. Look for similar to play out elsewhere --- using unreliable tools for decision making is not a good, responsible business plan. And lawyers are just waiting to press the point.
- bornfreddy 6mo agoAI can provide leads. Someone still needs to verify them and decide.
- 6mo ago
- tgv 6mo agoThis tool, however, is specifically built for mass surveillance. It serves no other purpose. The tool is broken, and everybody knows it. The tool makers are at least as guilty as those who use it.
- cyanydeez 6mo agoThe tool, like Google search, is likely biased towards returning results regardless of confidence.
- fc417fc802 6mo agoThe tool is unethical, not broken. And unfortunately remains legal for the time being. To that end it's a social or political problem that can be fixed.
- MattDaEskimo 6mo agoWhat kind of outcome results from misuse? Clearly a hammer's misuse has very little in common with a global, hivemind network used in high-stake campaigns. Now, if I misused a hammer and it hurt everyone's thumb in my country, then maybe what you said would have some merit. Otherwise, I'd say it's an extremely lazy argument
- hrimfaxi 6mo agoUnlike hammers people preface things with "claude says", etc. I never see that kind of distancing with tools that aren't AI.