Thread

1. freddealmeida · 1790398947 · focus · HN ↗

   Flock did not put the woman in jail. The police and DA put her in Jail. This is not a failure of the technology (do they have confidence levels?). This is a failure of how police are outsourcing their reasoning and decision making to an AI camera service that seems to fail at the tail.

   1. p-e-w · 1790400556 · focus · HN ↗

      Indeed. It’s insane to see these arguments implying the contrary. The institution committing the violence is the one responsible for the outcome.

      If a random person walks into a police station and accuses a random stranger of murder, and the police put that stranger in jail based on that alone, the main problem is not the accuser.

      1. jimdavenport · 1790401063 · focus · HN ↗

         But in this case, it wasn't a random person, it was a police-vetted system. Of course the authorities are to blame, but Flock hold a lot of responsibility, too.

         1. p-e-w · 1790410757 · focus · HN ↗

            It shouldn’t have been vetted then. It’s again the fault of authorities who approved that.

            A scientist who uses an LLM to write a paper remains responsible for its contents. And authorities that outsource police work remain responsible for what comes from that.

            1. franga2000 · 1790415236 · focus · HN ↗

               Sure it shouldn't have been approved, but it was approvied through misleading marketing and a huge and expensive lobbying effort. Flock spends a ton of money convincing cops and legislators that their product works well, is useful and safe. That was always a lie and they have to be held responsible for it.
      2. [deleted] · 1790401109 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.