81–90 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying the police in your area have facial recognition and pull over any car where the driver isn't who the car is registered to? I'm confused.
I think it's just an ALPR system. The car is registered in my Dad's name and since his license is suspended, the machine in the cruiser tells the officer to stop the car.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They will provide a concrete thing against which to test for bias and improve against. The history of junk forensic science has pretty clearly demonstrated that nobody in law enforcement cares about testing their biases, or improving the processes. If it gets them results, they'll use it.
Law enforcement is general is not good at self-accountability. That accountability has to be rigorously enforced from the outside. With algorithms, I think it can be done... but given how subtle the negative effects can be, the process must be stringent and err on the side of caution. In other words, any algorithm should be assumed to be biased until proven otherwise, and with a relatively high bar at that. There sho…
Absolutely. One major positive outcome of the OJ Simpson trial was how Simpson's attorneys completely trashed the police handling of forensic evidence on a national stage, forcing law enforcement across the country to raise their game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Won't work. You'll be matched on gait, the way you carry yourself. This scares the shit out of me, but what scares me more is that it doesn't also scare the shit out of everyone else.
What changes your gait? A heavier mask?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you can challenge the validity of the risk assessment. Bayes is used in jury trials all the time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference#Applicati... What we have today is institutional racism based on people’s gut reactions. An NN can be tested and shown that given all other factors it risks race, or any other protected class higher than it should.
> What we have today is institutional racism based on people’s gut reactions. Institutional racism is not based on people's gut reactions. Institutional racism is based on flawed algorithms. Not computer algorithms in this case, but bureaucratic ones. I don't see how a flawed computer algorithm would be any easier to correct than a flawed bureaucratic algorithm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What we have today is institutional racism based on people’s gut reactions. Institutional racism is not based on people's gut reactions. Institutional racism is based on flawed algorithms. Not computer algorithms in this case, but bureaucratic ones. I don't see how a flawed computer algorithm would be any easier to correct than a flawed bureaucratic algorithm.
Because we can black box test the “risk assessment” that whoever sells to police departments. We can’t black box test bureaucracies.
To address things like institutional racism, you have to change the institution. That's a human problem for which there is no technological solution (although technology can certainly be one of the tools used to create a larger change).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Due to some recent health issues, my Dad's driver license was temporarily revoked. He can't drive again until his doctor decides it's safe. So now my step mother is doing all the driving and anytime they go somewhere, they get pulled over by the police. This is a consequence of police cameras and software I had never thought of before and I have mixed feelings about it. I don't think there are any easy answers.
Public transportation is a good answer, for this specific example, although little you personally can do about that today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What we have today is institutional racism based on people’s gut reactions. Institutional racism is not based on people's gut reactions. Institutional racism is based on flawed algorithms. Not computer algorithms in this case, but bureaucratic ones. I don't see how a flawed computer algorithm would be any easier to correct than a flawed bureaucratic algorithm.
Because we can black box test the “risk assessment” that whoever sells to police departments. We can’t black box test bureaucracies.
Since we've not made much traction on blackbox testing bureaucracies, I'm going to go ahead and say that blackbox testing algorithms will be even worse. (For some dumb reason, people are inclined to trust algorithms.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really sounds preferable to me, even if the initial versions of these algorithms are biased. They will provide a concrete thing against which to test for bias and improve against. It is easily verifiable if your changes to an algorithm have removed the bias you are worried about. Conversely it is basically impossible to tell if your training on a human has changed their biases in the field, sort of just having the…
> It is easily verifiable if your changes to an algorithm have removed the bias you are worried about. Please never enter politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds preferable to calculate risk scores deterministically rather than rely on Law Enforcement's discretion. Risk scores are computed for every traffic stop, wouldn't you want to take that process away from the office and give it to a computer?
You are aware that AI programs reflect the prejudices of the organizations that develop them? https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6334/183.full
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is easily verifiable if your changes to an algorithm have removed the bias you are worried about. Please never enter politics.
Yeah, god forbid we have audit capabilities in law enforcement.