Thread

1. delichon · 1790389911 · focus · HN ↗

   > Regardless, the true takeaway of Isaacs’ experience is that ALPR technology, whether it’s from Flock or any of the other competitors in this space providing the same functionality (Axon, etc), is dangerous not only because it is so easily abused by police (or even by hackers) to invade the privacy and liberty of citizens, but also because it enables a lazy police department to outsource basic critical thinking to machines and then take action based on a single data point to ruin a person’s life.

   The accusation that some machine made any decision here goes beyond the reporting in the article. It seems concocted to raise AI alarm. All we have is that it supplied accurate data that police then abused. That isn't in the vicinity of "outsource[d] basic critical thinking to machines".

   I want such general government surveillance banned, but the machines in this story had no more volition than a breathalyzer.

   1. preg_match · 1790394184 · focus · HN ↗

      The machines matter, because we know how human behavior works. We know that if you give humans an automated tool that works most of the time, they get lazy, to the point where they make more mistakes than if they had no automation at all.

      1. wredcoll · 1790397829 · focus · HN ↗

         This should be emphasized more. Regardless of how technology could be used, we (should be) are responsible for how it is likely to be used.

         Guns can be used for all sorts of things. A handgun in a house is likely to be used for murder/suicide.

         1. Exoristos · 1790406141 · focus · HN ↗

            "A handgun in a house" is statistically extremely unlikely to be "used for murder/suicide."

            1. wredcoll · 1790438551 · focus · HN ↗

               It increases the incidences of both of those things happening compared to no gun.

               The total number is relatively small, but so are deaths from measles. Should we not decrease them where we can?

         2. ang_cire · 1790409789 · focus · HN ↗

            > A handgun in a house is likely to be used for murder/suicide.

            On an article about people who did no research to actually prove out their assumptions, this is perhaps the most ironic comment to be chastising them.

            1. wredcoll · 1790438668 · focus · HN ↗

               The irony of someone who doesn't know the facts but has strong beliefs replying to me, exactly like the article writer, is, well, a strong example of how hard it is to make progress when so many people have a vested interest in not moving.

               1. ang_cire · 1790550792 · focus · HN ↗

                  I do know "the facts". The fact is that the vast majority of handguns are never used in a suicide or murder. Ergo the average handgun is not "likely" to be involved in one.

                  The statistic you are reaching for but misunderstanding, is that they are more likely to be used in a suicide or murder than in home defense against an intruder.

                  A personally-owned handgun is statistically most likely to simply never be used, or only used at a range. The number of personally-owned firearms that are ever involved in a murder or suicide is literally a fraction of a percentage.

                  But go off!

                  1. wredcoll · 1790659297 · focus · HN ↗

                     No, the fact I was "reaching for" was that they increase the number of occurrences.

                     More guns in houses, more murder/suicides.

                     I think guns are as cool as the next guy but I'm willing to maybe consider my personal enjoyment from playing with a gun isn't worth the cost to society.

                     1. ang_cire · 1790734819 · focus · HN ↗

                        Except you didn't say "more likely", you said "likely". The former is accurate. The latter is not.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.