Thread

1. teravor · 1790399270 · focus · HN ↗

   the problem here appears to be that police officers are generally of average or below average intelligence. combined with the fact that they face no consequences for incompetence, you have the perfect mixture for nonsense like this happening.

   I expect the solution they will settle on is to form a department for interacting with technology like this, who understand its outputs are not edicts.

   you can't really expect any meaningful police reforms (such as liability and insurance) because anyone who is in any position to enact them is perfectly fine with dumb muscle that holds a monopoly on violence and is deferential to them. in fact the public disliking the police is an ideal outcome for those decision makers as it gives them more leverage over the police.

   1. LocalH · 1790442549 · focus · HN ↗

      The problem is that they're treating the output of the AI algorithm as 100% fact. Countless examples of Flock matching incorrectly or police otherwise using the match found by Flock as "here's who to go arrest" and not "here's a starting point for further investigation".

      Partial matches, correct matches but no investigation into things like paint transfer, it's happened way too many times (hint: one is too many times for things that can incarcerate people).

      It's like they're speedrunning unworthiness to hold the monopoly on violence. This is how you get riots and revolutions. Sadly, today's Western world is complicit and complacent. Nobody who is pro-surveillance state will change their mind until it affects them or someone close to them.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.