upvote

points

by nkrisc7 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby jqpabc1236 hours ago|
next
[-]
Yes. But doing the investigation negates much of the incentive for using AI.

Look for similar to play out elsewhere --- using unreliable tools for decision making is not a good, responsible business plan. And lawyers are just waiting to press the point.

reply
upvoteby nkrisc6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In this case it sounds as though AI could have been used to generate preliminary leads. When someone calls a tip line with information, police don’t just take their word for it, they investigate it. They know that tips they receive may be incorrect. They should have done the exact same here, but they didn’t.

I’m very opposed to AI in general, but this one is clearly human failure.

The noteworthy AI angle is the undeserved credence police gave to AI information. But that is ultimately their failure; they should be investigating all information they receive.

reply
upvoteby jqpabc1236 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
...but this one is clearly human failure.

Absolutely.

The failure starts with tool vendors who market these statistical/probabilistic pattern searchers as "intelligent". The Fargo police failed to fully evaluate these marketing claims before applying them to their work.

So in the same way that the failure rolled down hill, liability needs to roll back up.

reply
upvoteby bornfreddy6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
AI can provide leads. Someone still needs to verify them and decide.
reply
upvoteby jqpabc1236 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Generating and verifying bad leads costs money. Not verifying bad leads can cost much more.

At some point, you have to decide if wasting good money on bad intel makes sense.

reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The article says that the Fargo police claimed to have done "additional investigative steps independent of AI". (Perhaps they're lying, or did a poor job because they thought the extra steps were a formality.)
reply