we need personal liability for the owners of companies that make things like this
Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
371–380 of 468 posts
Re: Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
#372This is what we get instead of reasonable gun control laws.
You're free to (attempt to) amend the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court of the United States has already affirmed and reaffirmed that individual ownership of firearms in common use is a right. What do you propose that is "reasonable" given the frameworks established by Heller , McDonald , Caetano , and Bruen ? I can 3D print or mill basically every item you can imagine prohibiting at home: what exactly do laws…
> the Supreme Court of the United States has already affirmed and reaffirmed that individual ownership of firearms in common use is a right.
The current interpretation of 2A is actually a fairly recent invention; in the past, it's been interpreted much more narrowly. And if SCOTUS can overturn Roe v. Wade's precedent, they can do the same with their interpretation of 2A. They won't of course, at least not until some of its members age out and get -- hopefully -- replaced with people who aren't idiots.
But I'd be fine if 2A was amended away. Let the states make whatever gun laws they want, and we can see whether blue or red states end up with lower levels of gun violence as a result.
Re: Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then cops for the cops!
I don't think you know how policing works in America. To cops, there are sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves; they are sheepdogs protecting us sheep from the criminals. Nobody needs to watch the sheepdogs! But lets think about their analogy a little more: sheepdogs and wolves are both canines. Hmm. Also "funny" how quickly they can reclassify any person as a "wolf", like this student. Hmm.
> Nobody needs to watch the sheepdogs!
A sheepdog that bites a sheep for any reason is killed.
Re: Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
#374Sad for the student. Imagine the head scratching that's going on with execs who are surprised things might work when a probabilistic software is being used for deterministic purposes without realizing there's a gap between it kind of by nature.
I'm sure there will be no head scratching. They already know that this can happen, and don't care, because they know that if someone gets killed because of it, they won't be held responsible. And may not even lose any customers.
Re: Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
#375How likely is it that the AI system would have classified the bag of Doritos as a weapon had the person carrying it been white instead of black?
Re: Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
#376How is this not slander? I would absolutely sue the fuck out of this system where it puts people's lives in danger.
> How is this not slander?
Because that's not what slander is.
Re: Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
#377Feed the same system an image of an Asian kid and it will think the bag of chips is a calculator /s Or am I kidding? AI is only as good as its training and humans are...not bastions of integrity...
I think it's almost guaranteed that this model has race-related biases, so no, I don't think you're kidding at all. I think it's entirely likely that an Asian (or white) kid of the same build, wearing the same clothes, with a crumpled-up bag of Doritos in his pocket, would not get flagged as having a gun.
Re: Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Charge the superintendent with swatting. This assumes no human verification of the flagged video. Maybe the bag DID look like a gun. We'll never know, because modern journalism has no interest in such things. They obtained the required emotional quotes and moved on.
Not at all. Superintendent approved a system that they 100% knew would hallucinate guns on students. You assert that if the superintendent required human-in-the-loop before calling the police that the superintendent is absolved from deploying that system on students. You are wrong. The superintendent is the person who decided to deploy a system that would lead to swatting kids and they knew it before they spent taxpa…
No amount of telling people that AI hallucinates will get some people to believe that AI hallucinates.
Re: Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
#379Omnilert later admitted the incident was a “false positive” but claimed the system “functioned as intended,” saying its purpose is to “prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification.” prioritize your own safety by not attending any location fitted with such a system, or deemed to be such a dangerous environment that such a system is desired. the AI "swatted" someone.
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.
> The technology is just not there yet.
The technology literally can NEVER be there. It is completely impossible to positively identify a bulge in clothing as a handgun. But that doesn’t stop irresponsible salesmen from making the claim anyway.
Re: Armed police swarm student after AI mistakes bag of Doritos for a weapon
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Versus all the natural people We can at least hold them responsible.
> We can at least hold them responsible We don’t. (We can also hold corporations responsible. We seldom do.) The problem isn’t in the form of legal entity fraud and corruption wears.
It's probably just US culture of "if you aren't cheating you aren't trying to win hard enough".