71–80 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an aside AP Style is not use an Oxford comma, and that's been the rule for 50+ years https://www.prnewsonline.com/explainer-how-to-use-oxford-com...
This is upsetting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a tool. Used incorrectly will lead to errors. Just like a hammer, used incorrectly could hit the users finger.
Used incorrectly will lead to errors. Only one small little problem --- there is no way to tell if you are using it "correctly". The only way to be sure is to not use it. Using it basically boils down to, "Do you feel lucky?". The Fargo police didn't get lucky in this case. And now the liability kicks in.
But...
> there is no way to tell if you are using it "correctly".
This simply isn't true, at least in cases like this.
I know common sense isn't really all that common, but why would you give more credence to an untested tool than an untested crack-addled human informant?
The entire point of the informant, or the AI in this instance, is to generate leads. Which subsequently need to be checked.
[flagged]
Has it not been fairly common to require police officers to have a bachelor’s degree? Or an associate’s? I think recently that has been relaxed but I’ve lived in places where it was absolutely a requirement. I don’t think they’re as stupid as you suggest.
I'll just leave this here:
https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story...
This is a weak or misleading story about AI. First, the detective used the FaceSketchID system, which has been around since around 2014. It is not new or uniquely tied to modern AI. Second, the system only suggests possible matches. It is still up to the detective to investigate further and decide whether to pursue charges. And then it is up to court to issue the warrant. The real question is why she was held in jail…
In the US there are no consequences for people in power failing to follow procedures, laws or regulations - except for being told to stop doing whatever illegal thing they're doing, and possibly getting sued way down the line, which gets paid by taxpayers.
[flagged]
Has it not been fairly common to require police officers to have a bachelor’s degree? Or an associate’s? I think recently that has been relaxed but I’ve lived in places where it was absolutely a requirement. I don’t think they’re as stupid as you suggest.
Now factor in the slow decline of our educational institutions, where grade inflation has systematically diminished the credibility of a degree. I would wager that many C students today would have failed out completely 30 years ago.
In that light, it is not surprising that people are seeing ICE agents behave like brown shirts. No one in power wants those people asking any kind of hard questions about what they are being ordered to do.
This is a weak or misleading story about AI. First, the detective used the FaceSketchID system, which has been around since around 2014. It is not new or uniquely tied to modern AI. Second, the system only suggests possible matches. It is still up to the detective to investigate further and decide whether to pursue charges. And then it is up to court to issue the warrant. The real question is why she was held in jail…
This is how it should work, but I still think it is important to discuss these failures in the context of AI risks.
One of the largest real-world dangers of AI (as we define that now) is that it is often confidently wrong and this is a terrible situation when it comes to human factors.
A lot of people are wired in such a way that perceived confidence hacks right through their amygdala and they immediately default to trust, no matter how unwarranted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but a judge issued the warrant in the first place. Cops did not do a proper investigation and the judge green-lighted it. It is all on the JUDGE or possibly a magistrate who approved a faulty warrant. The judge failed the poor woman. FIRE him. Then sue Clearview for big bucks.
what's with the weird obsession all over the thread that it is the JUDGE who is the only person at fault here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US there are no consequences for people in power failing to follow procedures, laws or regulations - except for being told to stop doing whatever illegal thing they're doing, and possibly getting sued way down the line, which gets paid by taxpayers.
[deleted]
The timer starts from when you invoke it, though.
The 2 issues, which she may be caught in, are that it’s “speedy” from the perspective of a court, and that it really means “free from undue delays”.
There is no general definition of a speedy trial, but I think the shortest period any state defines is a month (with some states considering several months to still be “speedy”).
A trial can still be speedy even past that window if the prosecution can make a case that they genuinely need more time (like waiting for lab tests to come back).
It’s basically only ever not speedy if the prosecution is just not doing anything.
The vendor they used, Clearview AI, does not allow you to request data deletion unless you live in one of the half-dozen states that legally mandate it. https://www.clearview.ai/privacy-and-requests I have suddenly becomes very interested in New York's S1422 Biometric Privacy Act.