317
all 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Perroboc@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago

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 1 year ago

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

[-] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 35 points 1 year ago

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 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

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.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Same with bite analysis, polygraph, and (if I remember correctly) blood splatter analysis

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago
[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Relevant clip from The Wire

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Sort of, blood spatter is kinda legit: It's derived from old tracking techniques so it's not totally bullshit (but it's also not a super power or anything). You can tell if someone was running and blood was dripping or if it came from them getting repeatedly hit with something, etc. That's part of forensics, some of which is legit science (though it's not perfect and there are people who are full of shit that hire themselves out as "experts" sometimes).

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago

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 1 year ago

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

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

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 1 year ago

Sorry Aaron, it's alphabetical order.

Yay more convictions for driving while black. Great.

[-] waterbogan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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

[-] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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

[-] lorty@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago

As if police actually exist to prevent crimes.

[-] spudwart@spudwart.com 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] NightLily@lemmy.basedcount.com 3 points 1 year ago

LETS FUCKING GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOWN WITH PREDICTIONS!

this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
317 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59205 readers
2515 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