• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    So they are using it to try and decide on deployment?

    If that is all they’re using it for I guess it isn’t too bad. As long as it isn’t accusing individuals of planning to commit a crime with a zero evidence.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      It is probably going to be used to justify the disproportionate police attention paid to minority communities and to justify activities similar to stop and frisk.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        The thing is don’t they already have crime stats? Presumably they’re already using them as justification so this won’t change much.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      No, it’s bad, because ultimately it’s not leading anywhere, such tools can’t be used by unqualified people not understanding how they work (not many qualified people do too, my teamlead at work, for example, is enthusiastic and just doesn’t seem to hear arguments against, at least those I can make with my ADHD, that is, avoiding detailed explanations to the bone).

      If ultimately it’s not applicable where people want to apply it, it shouldn’t even be tested.

      This is giving such applications credibility.

      It’s the slippery slope that some people think doesn’t exist. Actually they exist everywhere.