231–240 of 468 posts
e.g. Not "this student has a gun" but "this model says the student has a gun with a probability of 60%".
If an AI can't quantify it's degree of confidence, it shouldn't be used for this sort of thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To that end, we should all have a cop assigned to us. One cop per citizen, with a gun pointed at our head at all times. Imagine a scenario happens where someone does something and that cop wasn't there? Better to be safe.
Why stop at one? Imagine how much safer we’d be with TWO cops per citizen! And all those extra jobs that would be created!
Systems like this need to report confidence in their assertions. e.g. Not "this student has a gun" but "this model says the student has a gun with a probability of 60%". If an AI can't quantify it's degree of confidence, it shouldn't be used for this sort of thing.
I wanna see the frames too.
Ah, the coming age of Palantir's all seeing platform; and Peter Thiel becoming the shadow Emperor. Too bad non-deterministic ml systems are prone to errors that risk lives when applied wrongly to crucial parts of society. But in an authoritarian state, those will be hidden away anyway, so there's nothing to see here: move along folks. Yes, surveillance and authoritarianism go hand in hand, ask China. It's important t…
The article is about omnialert, not palantir, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your soapbox rant.
This problem doesn't exist in Europe or Japan because guns aren't that ubiquitous, which means that the police have the time to think before they act, which makes them less likely to escalate and start shooting. Obviously, for Americans, the only solution is to get rid of the gun culture, but this will never happen, so suck it up that AI gets you swatted.
I expect that John Bryan -- who produces content as The Civil Rights Lawyer https://thecivilrightslawyer.com -- will have something to say about it. He frequently criticizes the legality of police holding people at gunpoint based on flimsy information, because the law considers it a use of force, which needs to be justified. For instance, he's done several videos about "high risk" vehicle stops, where a car is mistak…
Someday there'll be a lawyer in court telling us how strong the AI evidence was because companies are spending billions of dollars on it.
Systems like this need to report confidence in their assertions. e.g. Not "this student has a gun" but "this model says the student has a gun with a probability of 60%". If an AI can't quantify it's degree of confidence, it shouldn't be used for this sort of thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>...its purpose is to “prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification. Oh look, a corporation refusing to take responsibility for literally anything. How passe.
The invention of the corporation is virtually to eliminate responsibility/culpability from any individual. Human car crash? Human punishment. Corporate-owned car crash? A fine which reduces salaries some negligible percent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling it today. This company is going to get innocent kids killed. How many packs of Twizzlers, or Doritos, or Snickers bars are out there in our schools? First time it happens, there will be an explosion of protests. Especially now that the public knows that the system isn't working but the authorities kept using it anyway. This is a really bad idea right now. The technology is just not there yet.
And then there's plenty of bullies who might put a sticker of a picture of a gun on someone's back, knowing it will set off the image recognition. It's only a matter of time until they figure that out.