Technology

it's called SEO and it's an art

We don't even need to choose! Just use hours, months, years, decades! But no, Barbie movies.

There is no common metric measure of time.

Edit -common

It's America; anything but metric.

Yes.

It's the kind of phrasing you use when you're paid for how long an article is, but not how good it is.

Sounds like humans, so I guess it's AI progress? :p

Yea I share the same concerns about the "AI", but this sounds like a good thing. It's going through footage that wasn't going to be looked at (because there wasn't a complaint / investigation), and it's flagging things that should be reviewed. It's a positive step

What we should look into for this program is

• how the flags are being set, and what kind of interaction will warrant a flag
• what changes are made to training as a result of this data
• how the privacy is being handled, and where the data is going (ex. Don't use this footage to train some model, especially because not every interaction is out in the public)

Make it publicly accessible. It'll most certainly get watched and problems will be reported to be investigated further.

File a complaint, and you get to view the video. If nobody files a complaint, there is no need to view the video.

Indeed, nobody should be looking at the video unless a complaint is filed.

Well I mean you could rig the cameras to turn on when the cop gets out of their car to break the footage into specific encounters where the cop had to interact with someone. Identify the files by the date, time, and badge number of the cop the camera is assigned to, and now you've got an easy to search database of footage whenever an incident is reported either by the cop because they had to issue paperwork for it or by whoever they were interacting with because they want to lodge a complaint.

While randomly selecting files not involved in ongoing investigation as potential training material could be helpful, we don't actually HAVE to have an assigned review resource to scan for bad behaviour or relevant material to investigations since in both cases someone is incentivized to start the process that will pull the relevant footage anyways.

Wouldn't that be a huge privacy issue?

This is an astonishingly bad take.

Almost every AI system is a black box. Even if you open source the code and the training data, it's almost impossible to know anything about the current state of a machine learning model.

So the entire premise here is that a completely unaccountable system - whose decisions are basically impossible to understand or scrutinize - gets to decide what data is or isn't relevant.

When an AI says "No crime spotted here", who gets to even know that it did that? If a human is reviewing all of the footage, then why have the AI? You're doing the same amount of human work anyway. So as soon as you introduce this system, you remove a huge amount of human oversight, and replace it with decisions that dramatically affect human lives - that could potentially be life or death if it's the difference between a bad cop being taken off the street or not - being made by a completely unaccountable system.

Whose to say if the training data fed into this system results in it, say, becoming effectively blind to police violence against black people?

And if that doesn't scare you, it absolutely should.

It's also potentially skipping some of the parts that should be looked at. It depends on the training set.

It's not that AI is scary, it's that AI is dumb as fuck.