Remix.run Logo
pj_mukh 5 hours ago

I'm sorry but this is a piss-poor excuse. When I Claude code broken features, I'm responsible 100%.

Why are cops not treated the same way? OP is right, AI is totally irrelevant in this story.

If the point is "cops can't be trusted". Why do they have GUNS?! AI is the least of your problems.

I feel like I'm going crazy with this narrative.

jacquesm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I feel like I'm going crazy with this narrative.

We're only getting warmed up. There are programmers on HN that will take the output of their favorite AI, paste it and run it. And we're supposed to be the ones that know better.

What do you think an ordinary person is going to do in the presence of something that they can not relate to anything else except for an oracle, assuming they know the term? You put anything in there and out pops this extremely polished looking document, something that looks better than whatever you would put together yourself with a bunch of information on it that contains all kinds of juicy language geared up to make you believe the payload. And it does that in a split second. It's absolutely magical to those in the know, let alone to those that are not.

They're going to fall for it, without a second thought.

And they're going to draw consequences from it that you thought could use a little skepticism. Too late now.

heavyset_go 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When you foster a culture of impunity and passing the buck, don't be surprised when they pass the buck to the inscrutable black box they bought.

You might even argue that's the purpose of the inscrutable black box.

TheScaryOne 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

AI is the new "it's policy."

dml2135 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

lotsofpulp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

heavyset_go an hour ago | parent [-]

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

tharkun__ 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

ux266478 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can hold someone responsible only after they've actually fucked up. And with the way things move in the criminal justice system, that can take months to discover. Holding them responsible doesn't really fix anything, it's purely reactive.

caconym_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As soon as we start to see a pattern of shitty vibe-coded software actually harming people via defects etc. (see: therac-25), I would hope that the conversation is about structural change to mitigate risk in aggregate rather than just punitive consequences for the individual programmers who are "responsible". The latter would be a fantastically stupid response and would do little or nothing to reduce future harm.

pj_mukh 5 hours ago | parent [-]

all accountability need not be punitive, we can certainly talk about systemic guardrails. What I find disbelief in, is someone saying the Chief of Police saying "We are not going to talk about that today?" is not the biggest scandal, but the AI is.

caconym_ 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> someone saying the Chief of Police saying "We are not going to talk about that today?" is not the biggest scandal, but the AI is.

Who is this "someone"? OP's article and the discussion here are absolutely not neglecting the human factors and general institutional failure that made this possible. But it's also true that without these "AI" tools, it would never have happened.

pj_mukh 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yea but this feels like when a Waymo ran over a cat, and a Human driver ran over a toddler and both got the same level of coverage in the media (actually the cat got more follow-up coverage). And I'm supposed to believe both issues are equally important.

No. That's gaslighting, and totally misplaced political activation.

toraway 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

  "Among his accomplishments has been establishing the department’s Real Time Crime Center that leverages technology and data to support officers in responding more effectively to incidents," the city's release said. "Zibolski also prioritized officer wellness initiatives to strengthen mental health resources and resilience within the department. He reinstituted the Traffic Safety Team to focus on roadway safety and proactive enforcement, and ... played an active role in statewide discussions on various issues affecting law enforcement."
From the same article... He spearheaded a push to "leverage technology and data to support officers in responding more effectively to incidents", then that same technology mistakingly ruins a woman's life by passing along a hit to an officer who compared with her FB photos and said "sure, seems right".

The technology seems highly relevant here. Plus, as we've seen in the software world, when a mandate comes from the top to use the shiny new magic AI tools as much as possible, the officer may have felt pressured to make arrests using the new system they paid a bunch of money for instead of second guessing whatever it spits out.

jfengel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are exactly correct. Cops cannot be trusted. We spent a lot of time pointing that out in 2020. AI is the least of our problems with policing.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are certain it won't happen to them, and it has been practically impossible to establish any kind of accountability. It has only gotten worse since 2020.

malwrar 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are right IMO to question why North Dakota police were able to obtain this Tennessean woman in the first place, you’d think something like that should require far more sufficient evidence than facial recognition.

But, then what good is facial recognition for? Would it have been okay for this woman’s life to have been merely invaded because she matched a facial recognition system? Maybe they can just secretly watch you so you’re not consciously aware of being investigated? Should that be our new standard, if a computer thinks you look like a suspect you can be harassed by police in a state you’ve never even been in?

I just don’t see a legitimate way for AI to empower officers here without risking these new harms. That’s why I lean towards blaming the AI tech, rather than historically intractable problems like the reality of law enforcement.

mlinsey 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Having a facial recognition match make you a suspect and cause the police to ask you some questions doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me. Investigations can certainly begin with weak forms of evidence (like an anonymous tip), you just require a higher standard of evidence for a search warrant, surveillance, or an arrest. A facial recognition match shouldn't be probable cause for an arrest warrant, but it still might be a useful starting point for a detective looking for actual evidence.

crooked-v an hour ago | parent [-]

It is absolutely not reasonable to use low-quality photos to decide someone halfway across the country with no history of even leaving their local area is 'a suspect'.

smcl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You’re on the right track here but I don’t think it should be hand-waved away as “the least of your problems” - it’s yet another weapon that police in the USA can use against the population with impunity. They’re going to have to reckon with all of this in the coming years - cops having guns and armored cars, “qualified immunity”, the “stop resisting” workaround for brutality and now this AI

antod 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But it's not totally irrelevant in this story.

Cops are already susceptible to confirmation bias, and for "efficiencies" they are delegating part of their job to apparently magical tools that will only increase their confirmation bias. And because it is for efficiency you can bet they won't be given extra time to validate the results.

What or who is at fault isn't either/or, it's a bunch of compounding factors.

stego-tech 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You’re going crazy because up until this exact moment you’ve never had to confront the reality that these tools, placed into the hands of the common man, are viewed as authoritative and lack any accountability or consequence for misuse.

For anyone who has been victimized by law enforcement or governments before, we’ve been warning about this shit for decades. About the lack of consequence for police brutality. The lack of consequence for LPR abuse. The lack of consequence for facial recognition failures and AI mismatches.

You need to understand that by using these systems correctly and holding yourself accountable, you are in the minority. Most people do not think that critically, and are all too happy to finger the computer when things go badly.

And until you accept that, and work to actually hold folks accountable instead of deflecting blame away from the tool, then this won’t actually change.

Nimitz14 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

Your answer presumes we cannot hold people accountable. I think that is incorrect.

pear01 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's called qualified immunity. Many support its repeal. I hope you join them, and convey the same to your local representatives and candidates. Until it is reformed few if any officers or administrators of criminal justice in the United States will ever feel any type of accountability.

Short of video evidence of blatant gun to the back of the head style homicide qualified immunity means most law enforcement officials are never held accountable for their miscarriages of justice. Criminal charges against officers are exceedingly rare. She should be able to sue this detective directly. Of course she can sue the government too, and should. But without any personal consequences for the people carrying out these acts, taxpayers will continue to bail out these practices without ever noticing. Your own government should not be a shield for a police officer who has violated you or your neighbors.

kelnos 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Many support its repeal.

There's nothing to repeal. Qualified immunity is a doctrine that the judicial branch made up out of thin air, with no legislative backing.

But agreed, we need legislatures to write laws that expressly hold police accountable, and declare that they are not shielded from liability when things go wrong due to their own failures and negligence.

jfengel 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Short of video evidence of blatant gun to the back of the head style homicide qualified immunity means most law enforcement officials are never held accountable for their miscarriages of justice.

And frequently not even then.

kelnos 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, this is the USA we're talking about. Cops are given huge authority over everyone else, with poor accountability. AI just lets them pretend to be even less accountable. And by "pretend" I of course mean "get away with it".

wat10000 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When are cops ever treated the same way as the rest of us?

deepsun 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Well in most cases I would prefer to have a cop's word to outweigh a word of an average joe.

amanaplanacanal 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Do you think police are inherently more honest than everybody else? Why would you think that?

wat10000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why should having that particular job give you that privilege? All should be equal before the law.