61–70 of 468 posts
Sad 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 can't. The execs won't care and probably in their sadist ways, cheer.
We've got a model out there now that we've just seen has put someone's life at risk... Does anyone apart from that company actually know how accurate it is? What it's been trained on? Its false positive rate? If we are going to start rolling out stuff like this, should it not be mandatory for stats / figures to be published? For us to know more about the model, and what it was trained on?
"rapid human verification." at gunpoint. The Torment Nexus has nothing on these AI startups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We got our cyberpunk future, except none of it's cool and everything's extremely stupid.
Pretty sure cyberpunk was always this dark.
We got dark, but also lame and stupid.
Omnilert 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.
I think the most amazing part is that the school doubled down on the mistake by parroting the corporate line. I expect a school to be smart enough to say “Yes, this is a terrible situation, and we’re taking a closer look at the risks involved here.”
Lawyer's advice?
> “They didn’t apologize. They just told me it was protocol. I was expecting at least somebody to talk to me about it.” I wonder how effective an apology and explanation would have been? Just some respect.
Effective at what? No one is facing any consequences anyway.