71–80 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
suspected law breakers then? Fucking semantics people. Also telling.
This entire thread has been about false positives. Innocent people being falsely accused of shoplifting. The difference between committing a crime and not committing a crime is not simply semantics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the photo in your imaginary scenario low quality? Why do you think the plan is "infeasible and stupid"? You don't think the technology will catch up?
"These images, which were often poor quality, were captured from CCTV or employees’ mobile phone cameras." - the article "You don't think the technology will catch up?" First, technology can not transcend GIGO. GIGO is fundamental. Secondly: "When a customer entered a store who supposedly matched an existing image on its database, employees would receive an automatic alert instructing them to take action — and the ma…
If that were true, then federal law enforcement agencies wouldn't use social media as a database for facially recognizing people suspected of crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct. In fact there is research that humans are not particularly good at matching people to photos... this 2014 study showed a 15% error rate (with photos from identification documents , high-quality standardized photos, not low-quality random angle ones!), and the real kicker is passport officers (who do this as part of their job all day and presumably care about doing it well) surprisingly performed no b…
>In fact there is research that humans are not particularly good at matching people to photos... >(Someone is now going to suggest, right, that's why we should have computers do it instead, bringing the circle back around again... but just no). So where does this leave us for facial recognition? Should we ban both computer and human facial recognition, because they're both flawed? How would that be enforced? If a sto…
This is hard, we generally do the opposite. Especially in racialized ways in the USA.
AI systems are often promoted as some kind of a solution to this, that somehow avoids human bias/mistakes. I think your comments even revealed that kind of thinking. I don't think they should be thought of that way.
If the best face recognition software has an error rate of 0.08% [1] and Rite Aid serves 1.6M customers a day [2] what moron thought that was a good idea? [1] https://github.com/usnistgov/frvt/blob/nist-pages/reports/1N... [2] https://careers.riteaid.com/pages/company-info
I'm not defending Rite-Aid at all, but that's not the problem here. It's pretty easy for the system to show the source photo to an employee, and then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person. Facial recognition software should always be implemented under the assumption that it makes plenty of false positives, and human review is always necessary. (What you're talking ab…
Then why have AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So where does this leave us for facial recognition?" Where it leaves us is that it doesn't work, and it can't work. I see no evidence that there is some big reservoir of facial recognition quality to be extracted from the same basic data set. There is all sorts of reasons to believe that it is simply impossible to create a system that can be given a small percentage of the population as the targets and pick them out…
>Where it leaves us is that it doesn't work, and it can't work. You didn't answer the second part of my comment: "How would that be enforced? If a store employee thinks they recognize someone from a few minutes ago, are they supposed to ignore that fact, and pretend that they're different people, on the off chance that the guy might be someone else[1]?" >and probably drop the requirement that de facto minimum wagers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"These images, which were often poor quality, were captured from CCTV or employees’ mobile phone cameras." - the article "You don't think the technology will catch up?" First, technology can not transcend GIGO. GIGO is fundamental. Secondly: "When a customer entered a store who supposedly matched an existing image on its database, employees would receive an automatic alert instructing them to take action — and the ma…
>Face matching is not a hard problem for computers. Face matching is a hard problem, period. If that were true, then federal law enforcement agencies wouldn't use social media as a database for facially recognizing people suspected of crimes.
The task of picking a face out of hundreds, matched with the other additional cues social media can add, is radically different than the task of picking a face out of the entire human population. It is the latter that is infeasible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Where it leaves us is that it doesn't work, and it can't work. You didn't answer the second part of my comment: "How would that be enforced? If a store employee thinks they recognize someone from a few minutes ago, are they supposed to ignore that fact, and pretend that they're different people, on the off chance that the guy might be someone else[1]?" >and probably drop the requirement that de facto minimum wagers…
I was doing you the favor of ignoring the irrelevant hypothetical. I find "but what if something else entirely that you didn't say?" questions rather annoying. And I believe I was rather clear that the problems I am talking about extend beyond facial recognition, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a reminder that the "1 per store per day" is an innocent human being who probably would have been put through hell on earth by what you considered an acceptable rate of error.
What is "hell on earth" to you? Cops have probable cause and search you. Find no evidence. "Oh boy sorry for the mix up sir". Hell on earth!
i've been racially profiled before and never once has a cop apologized "for the mixup" after detaining me (rudely, usually cursing, fishing for a way to bust me).
"hell on earth" is living in a dystopian society where non-white citizens are detained and held for no reason and assumed to be guilty, because of a malfunctioning "AI" system.