Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PicklerOfTheSwamp t1_jdy4fde wrote

Wtf is this, some Minority Report shit?!?!

250

jetbag513 t1_jdy4n28 wrote

Seem more like the Majority at this point.

103

fiftyeleventimes t1_jdybm2y wrote

Sadly true.

21

supercyberlurker t1_jdyktnc wrote

We all fear what's coming.

That thing where there's cameras everywhere, hooked up to machine learning systems like hall monitors, microticketing us into compete compliance with every regulation everywhere we go, digitizing our every public moment.

What's worse is, there won't even be the three seashells.

68

gothfreak90 t1_jdyltyo wrote

Can we at least have rat burgers and beer?

14

StruggleSnuggled t1_jdz1bf5 wrote

Rat burgers and beer or Taco Bell.

5

Magatha_Grimtotem t1_jdz5zys wrote

I'll take the rat burger. At least you know what's in that.

7

Same_Lengthiness9413 t1_jdzk7lp wrote

Having eaten rat, it’s not that bad… could always be worse. Could of been no rat…

1

mobileagnes t1_je0jr6v wrote

China already had this in a way with their social credit score system. 😱

2

empfindsamkeit t1_je1l1q4 wrote

You know we have control over all those regulations right? If they're law and it's okay for a relative few to be randomly caught and published, it should be okay for 100% to be punished, or it should've never been law in the first place. And the proper avenue is repeal rather than just trying to ensure most laws aren't enforced most of the time.

1

Indercarnive t1_je4s1o0 wrote

No no, I'm pretty sure this stuff is mostly being used to make reports on minorities.

2

RonBourbondi t1_jdzsrvn wrote

Sure your tune would change if this helped identify someone that kidnapped a child.

−37

Mobely t1_jdzvrtd wrote

And if it identified the wrong person? Who could not produce the child they don’t have? And are sentenced to death form presumably murdering said child since the child is nowhere to be found?

32

An_best_seller t1_je0dfi6 wrote

Trigger Warning: Mass-shooting, rape.

I think that this technology shouldn't be used as evidence, but just as a tool to find potential (but not definitive) criminals/perpetrators and to find suspects way faster. However, the person should only be sentenced by a judge if they find evidence of the crime that is not based on their face.

Here are some examples:

  • There is a mass-shooting. A camera films a video of the mass-shooter face. Police don't know where nor who the mass-shooter is. Police uses Artificial Intelligence to find people that have a similar face to the mass-shooter. They find 7 people with the same face in the USA. They start investigating each person and they find that 1 of the 7 face-suspects bought a gun with the same type of bullets that the ones found in the crime scene. They also find that this one suspect has shoes that match the shape of the blood footprints of the crime scene. And they find that the suspect had been searching in Google Maps the location of the crime scene before the mass-shooting happened. They arrest this one suspect and keep looking for more evidence and they finally go to trial, and the overwhelming evidence tells they are guilty, so they sentence them to life in prison or death penalty (I'm not going to argue right now whether the death penalty is wrong or right. That's off-topic).
  • A woman is raped by a man. A camara from a bar films the video of the rapist face. Police don't know where nor who the rapist is. Police uses Artificial Intelligence to find people that have a similar face to the rapist. They find 9 people with the same face in the USA. They take DNA samples from each of these 9 people and compare them to the DNA from the semen found in the victim's body. It happens that 1 of these 9 people have the exact same DNA. They start investigating this man and find that his friends were in the same bar of the crime scene and the same day of the crime. His friends tell police that that they were with the current suspect at that bar on that day. The man goes to trial, more evidence of the crime is found and he is sentenced.

As you can see, I don't support using Artificial Intelligence as definitive evidence to sentence someone to prison time nor death penalty. But I think that it can make the process of finding possible/potential criminals much easier and much faster, and then allow police to start looking for evidence in one of each suspects. If police doesn't find evidence in one, multiple or all of the suspects, they should let them go. A suspect should only be sentenced if they find more evidence than the one from the Artificial Intelligence research. Of course, when I say that they should be sentenced if they find "more evidene" of the suspect, I mean solid and important evidence. I don't mean evidence such as "The suspect lives in the same city as the victim, therefore they are guilty". I mean high-quality evidence.

By the way, I don't know too much about crimes nor types of evidence nor the protocols of the police, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm just guessing how the process could be like.

−2

RonBourbondi t1_jdzwb2z wrote

So don't use all your tools before they kill the child?

−10

Mobely t1_je038qm wrote

Well if we're going down that road, almost all child kidnappings are done by the kids other parent and it's not to kill them.

So if we are looking to stop all child kidnappings that result in the child's murder, we would have an insanely high false positive result. You'd be jailing thousands of people, leaving their kids orphaned and vulnerable to violence. So yeah, don't use the shitty tools to cause more harm than good.

FP/N=FP/FP+TN

12

RonBourbondi t1_je065xw wrote

Nah because this goes off of pictures to identify themselves.

Not only that cops post pictures of suspects on news all the time. Thus AI is no different than crowdsurfing except it is more accurate and better.

−10

Joe-Schmeaux t1_je0j9l0 wrote

So trust the police with even more powerful tools?

4

RonBourbondi t1_je0x8jl wrote

So hinder an investigation and have a child not be saved from murder?

−1

Joe-Schmeaux t1_je15p0r wrote

So trade one set of murders for another?

2

RonBourbondi t1_je16edc wrote

Who's getting murdered from this?

0

Joe-Schmeaux t1_je170nr wrote

From the police misusing identification software and apprehending innocent people who end up in prison? Any such person would be at risk for murder or suicide. It's a shitty situation as is, let's not add things that can make it worse and give the already powerful, corrupt police forces of the world even more power. Trusting them to not misuse this can make things even worse, and we'll still have people being kidnapped.

3

RonBourbondi t1_je17iu7 wrote

So has there been a single case of them using the AI software and this happened?

−1

Joe-Schmeaux t1_je18w64 wrote

I just googled it and this was the first article to come up. He spent ten days in jail and $5000 in legal defense. This was three years ago. He may not have suffered physical harm, but the potential for misuse and abuse of this kind of power is concerning.

3

usalsfyre t1_je37ndv wrote

You’re not supposed to deep throat the boot….

1

Caster-Hammer t1_je04ib5 wrote

Let's play "find the fascist."

11

RonBourbondi t1_je069c7 wrote

So you're against cops posting pictures of criminals on the news in a search for tips of who they are?

−4

Caster-Hammer t1_je1zs0p wrote

So you're for moving the goalposts to defend an encroaching police state?

3

RonBourbondi t1_je20tvg wrote

If you want to call it that go ahead.

Nothing wrong using tools to track down criminals.

1

piTehT_tsuJ t1_je0162o wrote

It would be great if indeed it did the problem being facial recognition isn't anywhere near 100% accurate and this could lead to false arrests and the real kidnapper getting away.

7

RonBourbondi t1_je01dk0 wrote

Yeah I will gladly take a false arrest that can easily be cleared up over a dead child.

−3

Antnee83 t1_je0brsg wrote

"easily cleared up"

Tell me you have no experience with this without telling me...

Have fun getting a job when every background check shows "ARRESTED FOR KIDNAPPING A CHILD." Good fucking luck "clearing that up easily"

12

RonBourbondi t1_je0c8i6 wrote

So are you also against releasing a suspects pictures on the news which can lead to tips and visits from the police even on incorrect identifications?

Because this is no different.

1

TogepiMain t1_je0e2zc wrote

I sure am! You know how many lives are ruined by being thrown up on the "suspect" wall? No one cares that they didn't do it, all that matters is that their photo was in the news with the words "probably did a crime??" Underneath

7

RonBourbondi t1_je0etka wrote

Yet countless people have been caught this way and has saved lives from posting pictures of the actual perpetrators to get a crowd source answer of who it is.

0

piTehT_tsuJ t1_je0ky6t wrote

Crowd source? Like Reddits hunt for the Boston bombers...

5

TogepiMain t1_je0fd8k wrote

Gonna need some actual numbers on that or else who can say.

Theyre probably not worth the damage, long term.

4

Paizzu t1_je0xlzu wrote

> "Think of the children" (also "What about the children?") is a cliché that evolved into a rhetorical tactic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

4

RonBourbondi t1_je0z8a0 wrote

Think of the kidnapped then. Lol.

If you have footage and pictures of the perp run them in an AI database to help narrow down suspects to then save lives.

Not particularly controversial.

−1