81–90 of 91 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is expensive because there exist people who are willing to stand by their values?
Shitty* values but yes, try to keep up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shitty* values but yes, try to keep up.
we can keep up with well-reasoned arguments, it's just that the words that you're typing are incoherent. i guess we can assume that you think racial profiling is ok and being against it is "shitty"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
we can keep up with well-reasoned arguments, it's just that the words that you're typing are incoherent. i guess we can assume that you think racial profiling is ok and being against it is "shitty"?
How about this: you construct a society that obsesses about race, I build a society that obsesses about property rights and we’ll see who wants to live where?
I wonder who provides them this tech. A friend of mine quit a company because they were developing a VERY similar technology a few years back. He "lovingly" called it RPaaS (Racial Profiling as a Service). He went WAAAY above his pay grade to protest against the creation of the product and it ultimately ended in him sending a letter of resignation.
Especially if you give them juicy details and a nifty new acronym they can get headlines with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One difference is that it's hard to know if you have the chemicals in your building, or be able to eliminate them. Knowing that you have facial recognition and eliminating it is much easier.
True in theory, but is the chemical composition of a building really more complex than the software installed in a building? I feel like theres some 2nd law of supply chains that guarantees that every supply chain --physical or sofware-- will grow in complexity beyond auditability.
A chemical can't be seen, and can't be removed.
And even if the hardware is super entwined with the building, making it hard to remove, such as tied in with the HVAC system, there likely will be some toggle switch to turn off facial recognition. There's no toggle switch to remove chemicals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One difference is that it's hard to know if you have the chemicals in your building, or be able to eliminate them. Knowing that you have facial recognition and eliminating it is much easier.
Not for any landlord that doesn’t control every business and person in the building. All it takes is UPS adding facial recognition to driver bodycams or something and suddenly your building has facial recognition in it. Better to just put the warning everywhere and forget about it.
As for facial recognition in common areas, the landlord can put a clause in the lease agreement requiring tenants not to do that.
If disclaimers are required for facial recognition and a UPS driver has a facial recognition bodycam, I assume it'll be the UPS driver that needs the disclaimer, not every place the UPS driver visits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One difference is that it's hard to know if you have the chemicals in your building, or be able to eliminate them. Knowing that you have facial recognition and eliminating it is much easier.
Eliminating it by a customer is a rather tough sell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is how correlated are human and machine errors. I would guess fairly strongly, in which case human review would add little additional accuracy.
> I would guess fairly strongly No, evidence suggests they are not. We're all very aware of the horror stories of AI misidentifying species . Different AI systems are different, but in general AI seems to make quite different classes of mistakes from humans. Our brains work very differently from current statistical models. So human review absolutely adds accuracy, you can generally assume. And it adds human-accountab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> .. then they themselves can judge if they feel confident the shopper is actually the same person Yes - but the "approach and identify" of false positives/innocent people was the actual embarrassment and harassment that the system got banned for, it was the human review (asking for ID etc) that was the issue.
But it seems like they went straight to approaching and asking for ID. What about the step where it shows a human photos from original footage and current footage and they get to say, nope I'm not confident? Again, not defending Rite-Aid here, just pointing out that facial recognition needs a human verification layer before taking any action at all. The fact they weren't doing that is just one part of why their actio…