zlacker

I think it is very wrong. Faces are anything but unique. Having a particular face should not result in you being a suspect. Only once actual policing results in you becoming a suspect then this might be a low quality extra signal.

>>jacque+(OP)
> Having a particular face should not result in you being a suspect. Only once actual policing results in you becoming a suspect then this might be a low quality extra signal.

Having a picture or just a description of the face is one of the most important pieces of information the police has in order to do actual policing. You can be arrested for just broadly matching the description if you happen to be in the vicinity.

Had the guy been convicted of anything just based on that evidence, this would be a scandal. As it is, a suspect is just a suspect and this kind of thing happens all the time, because humans are just as fallible. It's just not news when there's no AI involved.

>>gridlo+wb
A face of which there is only a description is not going to work if there aren't any special identifying marks unless you get an artist involved or one of those identikit sets to reconstruct the face. An AI is just going to spit out some generic representation of what it was trained on rather than the specifics of the face of an actual suspect.

Faces generated by AI means should not count as 'probable cause' to go and arrest people. They should count as fantasy.

>>jacque+lm1
> Faces generated by AI means should not count as 'probable cause' to go and arrest people.

They don't:

https://wfdd-live.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/story-full/s3/imag...

There was further work involved, there was a witness who identified the man on a photo lineup, and so on. The AI did not identify anyone, it gave a "best effort" match. All the actual mistakes were made by humans.