Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 0x3f 77 days ago
Human law enforcement hallucinates all the time. This is a bit like a poor argument against self driving.
2 comments

The last line of GP's comment is key here: "Who do I sue if Palantir decides I am an illegal?"

This shouldn't make as much of a difference as it does, but due to how our legal system works, it's much harder to get meaningful legal satisfaction when an algorithm (or other inhuman distributed system) commits a crime against a person than when a person does so.

I think you're confused about the mechanism involved. It's hard to get satisfaction due to e.g. qualified immunity. The fact they use technology is largely irrelevant. You couldn't sue the NSA for spying on you before AI either.
"Computer says no", look it up.

Cars measure success by not hitting things.

Cops measure success by number of people they arrest. Note, not the number of people found guilty, that's the prosecutor.

Cops will gladly use a hallucinating computer system to beat the absolute fuck out of you with qualified immunity.

> Cops measure success by number of people they arrest.

Simply not true. Police KPIs tend to focus on crime rates.

Regardless, they can mistreat you with or without AI backing.

The elected officials like chiefs get judged on crime rates. Individual officers are on arrests and tickets (regardless of rules against quotas)
If we assume they are on quotas then what difference does technology make? They had quotas before the technology, qualified immunity too. 100 false arrests with no recourse are 100 false arrests with no recourse.

If anything I would expect technology favors the victim of false arrest because it gives the cop a face-saving get out. Previously, a cop who false-arrested you would have been incentivized to take it all the way, because you getting justice for it is intrinsically tied to impugning their word and/or reputation.