this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
308 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

58157 readers
3872 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Perroboc@lemmy.world 55 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That’s because you’re not engraving the suspects name in wooden balls based on the dreams of 3 people sleeping in some weird hot tubs.

[–] Gyrolemmy@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago (1 children)

To be honest in the US, most crimes are already Minority Reports

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Turns out if you just assume any minority is always guilty of a crime and only take action against them, the statistics back up your assumptions instead of reality!

[–] Tammo-Korsai@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago

Lock up people with major mental health issues, as well!

[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 32 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Less than 1%? Did they forget to flip a boolean condition?
Like that's worse than random, it's worse than if you intentionally wanted to be wrong.

[–] deranger@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

How do you figure that’s worse than random? Randomly attempting to predict crimes would likely be 0% accurate. I’m not supporting predictive policing at all, just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

There are near infinite failure conditions and few successful conditions.

[–] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

If you randomly selected a citizen as the culprit every time a crime was committed the only percentage of accuracy it wouldn't be is 0%, because it's inevitable you would be right at least once.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Somebody used a > when they should have used a <

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Police are notorious for using bullshit tech to try and justify their "investigations". Remember Voice Stress Analysis? Total bullshit, but thousands of departments bought into it. There are probably still innocent people in prison because of it.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

I know how they could make it thousands of times more accurate. Just rewrite it to always point at Wall Street.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 17 points 11 months ago

An algorithm needs good data, I would wager a bet that the Police are very good at keeping data that is racist and terrible.

[–] profdc9@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The police need crimes and criminals to justify their existence. If the criminals are selected by a computer program, that is sufficient for their purposes.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nobody likes unsolved crimes, so justice will now be dispensed arbitrarily based on an algorithm.

[–] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Simply convict one person for each crime. The computer pointed at that person for this crime so they must be guilty.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 1 points 11 months ago

Sorry Aaron, it's alphabetical order.

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago

Yay more convictions for driving while black. Great.

[–] waterbogan@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

How did they manage to do so spectacularly badly? I think part of the problem is that they were trying to predict times and locations, rather than focusing on individual offenders. Past record is highly predicitive of future behaviour, i.e. if an offender has committed assault half a dozen times, it is highly probable that they will commit another assault or similar violent offence again, we just dont know when or where. Poor quality data may also be part of it - garbage in, garbage out

[–] lorty@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 11 months ago

As if police actually exist to prevent crimes.

[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 4 points 11 months ago

I guess that's an L for crime-coefficients.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Ah shit are we already going minority report and psycho pass?

[–] NightLily@lemmy.basedcount.com 3 points 11 months ago

LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOWN WITH PREDICTIONS!