[BizarroLand]

Before that happens, the whole world would need to be under continual observation. Then we would have to realize that it always takes more people to observe the people than there are people to observe, and turn the eternal watch over to AI.

Then the AI wouldn't be saying, "I think it's likely you did this", it would be saying, "Here's the video of you doing this".

[sobkas]

> Before that happens, the whole world would need to be under continual observation. Then we would have to realize that it always takes more people to observe the people than there are people to observe, and turn the eternal watch over to AI.

> Then the AI wouldn't be saying, "I think it's likely you did this", it would be saying, "Here's the video of you doing this".

Reality of what this video shows will be is much closer to: " we have some video(we are not sure if AI properly reconstructed low quality recording and then matched person accused of crime, example: changing letters in photocopies), does video shows real crime or it only looks like a crime from certain angle, it search data for crimes not for proofs of innocence. After all what stops people behind AI from over representing as criminals people with evil mustaches (consciously or not, doesn't matter), so at start it assigns them a higher score?

[dragonwriter]

> Before that happens, the whole world would need to be under continual observation.

I don't see any reason that is a necessary precondition for an evolving reliance on AI judgement. Though obviously there are potential interactions between surveillance ubiquity and that.

> Then the AI wouldn't be saying, "I think it's likely you did this", it would be saying, "Here's the video of you doing this".

Crimes tend to have elements that cannot be shown on a video, but which might be deemed likely based on a video, like knowledge and intent.

So, it will exactly be “I think oy is likely that you did this”.

[BizarroLand]

I don't know how I would feel about allowing AI to put humans in prison without incontrovertible proof.

Any black box thing, (that is, any system where raw data comes in and a result comes out without everyone involved fully understanding the process) should not have the authority to take a human's freedom from them of its own volition.

I would much rather utilize them as a Sherlock whose job is to assemble the evidence that is available and state their conclusions to the jury, who could then make their decision based off of the evidence.

[8note]

That'll be the same thing though?

The ai creates a video animating the way it thinks you did it, which adds a couple extra legs and an extra eye, but the jury is already biased to think the defendant is likely to have extra eyes and legs, so they accept the ais description