[dml2135]

The “I” in “AI” stands for “intelligence”. Cops are using AI facial recognition because it is being sold to them as being smarter and better than what they are currently capable of. Why are we then surprised that they aren’t second-guessing the technology?

[wongarsu]

AI facial recognition is smarter than what they are capable of. That's not the issue. It is much faster than a human, and state-of-the-art models make fewer errors than a human (though the types of errors are not the same).

The issue is that facial recognition is just not very reliable. Not for humans and not for machines. If you look at millions of people, some of them just look incredibly similar. Yet police apparently thought that was all the evidence they will ever need. A case so watertight there's no point in even talking to the suspect

[wartywhoa23]

So the sane solution here is just leaving unreliable stuff to humans and reliable to machines. Especially so when human wellbeing and freedom are at the stake.

To define the line between the two, calculate the percentage of cases when mainstream CPUs return anything but integer 4 after addition of integer 2 and integer 2, and use that as the threshold to define "reliable".

[re-thc]

> The “I” in “AI” stands for “intelligence”

By that logic the “I” in Siri is 2x more intelligent.

[lotsofpulp]

Because they are supposed to possess minimum levels of intelligence found in homo sapiens, which includes not believing anything a salesperson says.

Also, their whole job is dealing with people who constantly lie to them.

[pixl97]

There are two things occurring here.

Police get raises and recognition for closing cases. In general they don't care if you're guilty or not, that's someone else's problem. Same with the detective, same with the DA. The more cases they close they 'tougher they are on crime'.

The next thing occurring is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no

[mapt]

If you have a broken system whose injustice is checked only by the limitations of the human elements, and you start replacing those human elements and powerscaling them, you have an unlimited downside.

[heavyset_go]

Similarly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automation_bias

[mschild]

Some police departments seem to actively reject candidates that have higher scores on IQ tests. Not that I think IQ test scores and actual intelligence are related but it clearly shows their intended target candidate group.

https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story...

[tptacek]

This came up a few weeks ago. I don't think it's true. This lawsuit from 26 years ago is the only example anybody has come up with. Among the problems with this claim:

* Nobody can find a police department that administers any kind of general cognitive test.

* There are large states with statewide written police aptitude tests that are imperfect but correlated to general cognitive ability, and maximizing scores on that test is the universal correct strategy.

* It's a luridly stupid policy and most municipalities aren't luridly stupid.

I think this happened like, once or twice, in one or two of the 20,000 police departments across the United States, many of which are like one goober and his sidekick (no offense to them; just, you live in gooberville, you're a goober), and now it's an Internet meme that police departments specifically hire for midwittery. Nah.

[ahazred8ta]

In different states, police use cognitive aptitude tests such as the Wonderlic -- https://jobdescriptionandresumeexamples.com/10-important-fac... -- https://www.practice4me.com/lst-police-exam/ -- these are not strictly 'IQ' tests, but they're very similar.

[tptacek]

The Wonderlic might as well be an IQ test (I'm using the term "general cognitive test").

The LST isn't; it's a domain-specific occupational exam.

If you find a place that (1) uses the Wonderlic and (2) has recently (like, not all the way back in 2000) claimed there was a high-end cut-off for applicants, you'll have disproven my claim. I don't think giving general cognitive tests to prospective police officers is common; this is why there are things like the LST, the PELLETB, and the POST.

[tharkun__]

You're over-selling the minimum level of intelligence in homo sapiens.

What you're stating is your wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong. I'd also like what you say to be true. It very much is not. Quite the opposite, which is why salespeople "work".

The amount of AI bullshit Senior+ level developers just paste to me as truth is astonishing.