zlacker

>>vermon+(OP)
Is that different from somebody getting arrested based on mistaken eyewitness.

>>MikusR+22
The difference is that is a known problem, but with ML, a large fraction of the population thinks it's infallible. Worse, its reported confidence for an individual face may be grossly overstated, since that is based on all the data it was trained on, rather than the particular subset you may be dealing with.

>>Engine+X2
> The difference is that is a known problem, but with ML, a large fraction of the population thinks it's infallible.

I don't think anybody actually believes that.

I'm pretty sure the exact opposite is true: People expect AI to fail, because they see it fail all the time in their daily use of computers, for example in voice recognition.

> Worse, its reported confidence for an individual face may be grossly overstated, since that is based on all the data it was trained on, rather than the particular subset you may be dealing with.

At the end of the day, this is still human error. A human compared the faces and decided they looked alike enough to go ahead. The whole thing could've happened without AI, it's just that without AI, processing large volumes of data is infeasible.