Agree. A better response to '80% chance that this is a known shoplifter' is for security to keep an eye on them. It should very quickly become apparent that it's a false positive (or not).
The problem is that this technology is not sold that way, it's sold as a way to detect shoplifters. It's also extremely important how the result is phrased and presented: even "80% chance that is is a known shoplifter" simply means "this is a known shoplifter" to a layperson. But even a 99.9% or 100% confidence might be wrong so this isn't even an 80% chance - at best it's 80% times the statistical likelihood of this not being a false positive at 100% confidence, and that can never be a 100% chance.
The (psychologically) correct way to think of this is as a colleague making a claim and telling you how certain they are. But this tech is not sold as a colleague, it's sold as a machine that is better than humans. It's not a perfect super cop but that's how it is marketed and why people buy it.
I am afraid the Appeal to Authority fallacy is one we as a society are about to be exposed to on a massive level and recognize as a side effect of integrating AI into our daily lives.
The (psychologically) correct way to think of this is as a colleague making a claim and telling you how certain they are. But this tech is not sold as a colleague, it's sold as a machine that is better than humans. It's not a perfect super cop but that's how it is marketed and why people buy it.