zlacker

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+(OP)
large fraction of the population and ML marketing both believe that.

I still think it insane. We have falling crime rates and we still arm ourselves as fast as we can. Humanity could live without face recognition and we wouldn't even suffer any penalties. Nope, people need to sell their evidently shitty ML work.

>>Engine+(OP)
> 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.

>>gridlo+X3
I think the human error was made possible because of AI: the AI can search millions of records. The police / detective cannot and will only search a very small set, limiting the search by other means.

The probability of finding an innocent with a similar enough face so that the witness can be fouled is much higher with AI.

>>raxxor+m1
(1) We still have extreme levels of crime compared to other first world countries even if it is in decline

(2) Your argument strikes me as somewhat similar to "I feel fine why should I keep taking my medicine?". It's not exactly the same as the medicine is scientifically proven to cure disease while it's impossible to measure the impact of police on crime. But "things are getting better so we should change what we're doing" is not a particularly sound logical argument.

>>treis+Xw
Crimes rates dropped even faster in countries with more rehabilitative approaches and long before some countries began to upgrade their police forces because of unrelated fears. It was more about giving people a second chance in all that.

Criminologists aren't certain about surveillance having a positive or negative effects on crime. We have more than 40 studies with mixed results. What is certain with that this kind of surveillance isn't responsible for the falling crime rates described. Most data is from the UK. Currently I don't think countries without surveillance fair worse on crime. Maybe quite to the contrary.

"what we're doing" is not equivalent to increasing video surveillance or generally increasing armament in civil spaces. It may be sound logic if you extend the benefit of the doubt but it may also just be a false statement.

Since surveillance is actually constitutionally forbidden in many countries, on could argue that deployment would "increase crime".

In some other sound logic it might just be a self reinforcing private prison industry with economic interests to keep a steady supply of criminals. Would also be completely sound.

But all these discussions are quite dishonest, don't you think? I just don't want your fucking camera in my face.