We should have learned from navigation systems that people rely too much on a computer without thinking for themselves.
Facial recognition and AI for behavior recognition are potentially good security tools. But only if a human controls the output. The US had people wrongfully imprisoned because some Flock camera made the wrong call. Cases in which a human would have noticed that the accused’s car has an entirely different color.
It’s a human problem that can’t get solved. Not with new protocols, not with new software ideas. I have seen people clicking on buttons without reading what is there, only to get rid of any obstacle fast enough.
The only solution is banning this technology. Alternatively, make all false positives not caught by a human as expensive as possible.
Humans, in aggregate, behave consistently when presented with structured prompts. The trick with new technology is to figure out what presentation of the information results in the desired behavior of checking for AI blind spots. An example with Flock is that they don’t present partial matches any differently than complete matches - in that case the improvement of describing partial matches as incomplete is obvious, but other triggers for human common reactions are more challenging to tease out. But it can be done!
I believe if regulators set up a system to encourage research and implementation of responsible data presentation - meaning outputs that make it easy for humans to have appropriate trust and add checking as needed - that would have more positive and lasting impacts than a ban.
How about don’t present partial matches, demand more data first to raise certainty of the results. Especially partial matches against open ended data sets is wildly unsafe in almost every case (eg. not already having suspects).
Responsible presentation is sometimes not at all, if the user isn’t an expert.
We should have learned from navigation systems that people rely too much on a computer without thinking for themselves.
Facial recognition and AI for behavior recognition are potentially good security tools. But only if a human controls the output. The US had people wrongfully imprisoned because some Flock camera made the wrong call. Cases in which a human would have noticed that the accused’s car has an entirely different color.
It’s a human problem that can’t get solved. Not with new protocols, not with new software ideas. I have seen people clicking on buttons without reading what is there, only to get rid of any obstacle fast enough.
The only solution is banning this technology. Alternatively, make all false positives not caught by a human as expensive as possible.
Humans, in aggregate, behave consistently when presented with structured prompts. The trick with new technology is to figure out what presentation of the information results in the desired behavior of checking for AI blind spots. An example with Flock is that they don’t present partial matches any differently than complete matches - in that case the improvement of describing partial matches as incomplete is obvious, but other triggers for human common reactions are more challenging to tease out. But it can be done!
I believe if regulators set up a system to encourage research and implementation of responsible data presentation - meaning outputs that make it easy for humans to have appropriate trust and add checking as needed - that would have more positive and lasting impacts than a ban.
How about don’t present partial matches, demand more data first to raise certainty of the results. Especially partial matches against open ended data sets is wildly unsafe in almost every case (eg. not already having suspects).
Responsible presentation is sometimes not at all, if the user isn’t an expert.