411–417 of 417 posts
“Computers don’t argue” seemed charmingly wrong about how computers work until a few short years ago. https://nob.cs.ucdavis.edu/classes/ecs153-2019-04/readings/c...
This quote from a 1979 IBM training manual remains applicable: “A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.” ( https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/ai-decision-making-where-... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, it's the police's fault, as well as the wider system they operate in that enables that kind of abuse, and they do it anyway even with out AI.
You're right that they often do a lot of harm. The point that you're missing is that, in a system where such abuses are possible, many of us really don't want one more tool in their box for them to fuck us with. Like, they already prove themselves incompetent- giving the power to track anyone in the US via a distributed ALPR system just makes them more dangerous. Giving them all these "AI" based tools does the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right that they often do a lot of harm. The point that you're missing is that, in a system where such abuses are possible, many of us really don't want one more tool in their box for them to fuck us with. Like, they already prove themselves incompetent- giving the power to track anyone in the US via a distributed ALPR system just makes them more dangerous. Giving them all these "AI" based tools does the same.
What do you think the appropriate set of tools for the police is? All the same but without AI face recognition or ALPR? Or also without DNA? fingerprints? guns? Access to government held data like tax filings? Access to other police departments' data?
They certainly don't seem to use any of that technology well, as you yourself have admitted.
I suppose what I don't understand is why giving them access to more and easier-to-abuse technology would be a "good" thing.
To be clear, I understand that it's the people who kill folks, not guns, and that at the end of the day it's people who need to be held accountable, not the technology. Personally, I do a lot of shooting with a bunch of other queer and trans anarchist folks lately...
But giving more tech to the folks who are already misbehaving without mechanisms to enforce good behavior seems dumb to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think the appropriate set of tools for the police is? All the same but without AI face recognition or ALPR? Or also without DNA? fingerprints? guns? Access to government held data like tax filings? Access to other police departments' data?
I don't think they should even have guns, honestly. I am from Texas where we know that they just up and murder folks like Sandra Bland. They certainly don't seem to use any of that technology well, as you yourself have admitted. I suppose what I don't understand is why giving them access to more and easier-to-abuse technology would be a "good" thing. To be clear, I understand that it's the people who kill folks, not…
I see. It's clear that you're ignoring the whole reason police exist which is to prevent crime. Of course a handicapped police force would prevent less crime than a well-resourced one. That's why it would be a good thing to give them more and easier to abuse technology.
The question is where the right balance is. Maybe having cars is OK because it helps them prevent more crime than what they cause by, say, running people over. Whereas having guns could be a net negative because more people are shot by police than protected by them with their guns. But without data, it's just opinions, probably formed from whatever bias the news has. The fact that you named an individual case suggests your opinion is based on biased news instead of data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they should even have guns, honestly. I am from Texas where we know that they just up and murder folks like Sandra Bland. They certainly don't seem to use any of that technology well, as you yourself have admitted. I suppose what I don't understand is why giving them access to more and easier-to-abuse technology would be a "good" thing. To be clear, I understand that it's the people who kill folks, not…
> I suppose what I don't understand is why giving them access to more and easier-to-abuse technology would be a "good" thing. I see. It's clear that you're ignoring the whole reason police exist which is to prevent crime. Of course a handicapped police force would prevent less crime than a well-resourced one. That's why it would be a good thing to give them more and easier to abuse technology. The question is where t…
But that level of logic follows from what you're writing here, so it's not surprising you think that...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a man arrested in Santa Clara county because his DNA was tracked to a murder scene by the paramedics that treated him before they were called to the scene of the murder. He only got away with it because the public defender realized that he was in the hospitals detox at the time of the murder.
Typically, the “it” in the phrase “got away with it” refers to an action that broke the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>if the cops (and other relevant personnel) gets it wrong, they should get served with the same injustices that they committed What if no one would want to work as a policemen and you end up alone against local gang?
> What if no one would want to work as a policemen This is by far the worst argument. What if we held doctors accountable for malpractice and no one wanted to be a doctor? What if we held engineers liable for faulty designs that break and kill people and no one wanted to be an engineer? What if we held OCCUPATION accountable for DOING JOB BADLY / BREAKING THE LAW ? Its a nonsense argument. What would happen is that o…