• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hmm.

    I believe that law enforcement has done that sort of thing for a long time, built databases to look for correlating factors and among relationships. And it sounds like they’re explicitly writing up the criteria, else they probably wouldn’t be able to rattle them off. So I kind of doubt that they’re using machine learning to find new criteria.

    If I had to guess from your text, what they did is had people come up with all the criteria that they could think of that’s likely to indicate that someone is Hamas. Then they had some database of known Hamas figures, and ran their classifiers against it, let the system figure how weightings for each of those criteria. I don’t know if that last bit is standard practice for law enforcement software, to identify likely suspects, but I can believe that it might be.

    “AI” might be a slightly ambitious term to use for that. I have used SpamAssassin, which uses Bayesian classifiers to identify spam, for decades. It does something comparable, but I don’t think that people have generally called SpamAssassin “AI”.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      So it’s machine learning.

      They have lots of data -social media foot print, addresses, names of friends, coworkers, etc. who they call, where they go for coffee; or happy hour after work, quite literally everything they can get on these guys.

      They the. Give it a known list and tell the machine to look for patterns (like switching burner cell phones every so often.) consistent between all of them.

      It even weights lower strength correlations as softer evidence.

      They then take that and run it against everyone they have in their database. And it spits out people that match the same things.

      As for it being artificial intelligence- it is, just not general AI (Like Data in Star Trek, R2-D2 in Star Wars or Kryzen in Red Dwarf). They’re more like idiot savants that are very good at this one task and suck and literally anything else.

      The problem is mostly in the shit data it was programmed with; and an assumption that it would always be right. It can recognize patterns, but there’s always some natural variation in the pattern.