Argentina’s security forces have announced plans to use artificial intelligence to “predict future crimes” in a move experts have warned could threaten citizens’ rights.
The country’s far-right president Javier Milei this week created the Artificial Intelligence Applied to Security Unit, which the legislation says will use “machine-learning algorithms to analyse historical crime data to predict future crimes”. It is also expected to deploy facial recognition software to identify “wanted persons”, patrol social media, and analyse real-time security camera footage to detect suspicious activities.
While the ministry of security has said the new unit will help to “detect potential threats, identify movements of criminal groups or anticipate disturbances”, the Minority Report-esque resolution has sent alarm bells ringing among human rights organisations.
Part of the problem with this approach is that prediction engines are predicted on the idea that there’s more of a thing to predict.
So unless they really, really go out of their way with modeling the records to account for this, they’ll have a system very strongly biased towards predicting more criminal behavior for everyone fed into it.
And biased towards replicating the existing history of arrests and convictions it is trained on
What could possibli go wrong?
Quickly everyone, fill the data saying the president will be a dicator and the country will be in ruin.
Milei after watching Minority Report: Caramba ! Good idea!
Elect a clown, enjoy the circus
To be fair with Argentina the circus has been going on for ages now and this one is a new figurant of the show.
Tech guy here.
This is a tech-flavored smokescreen to avoid responsibility for misapplied law enforcement.
By innate definition, everyone has the potential for criminality, especially those applying and enforcing the law; as a matter of fact, not even the ai is above the law unless that’s somehow changing. We need a lot of things on Earth first, like an IoT consortium for example, but an ai bill of rights in the US or EU should hopefully set a precedent for the rest of the world.
The AI is a pile of applied stastistic models. The humans in charge of training it, testing it and acting on its input have full control and responsibility for anything that comes out of it. Personifying or otherwise separating an AI system from being the will of its controllers is dangerous as it erodes responsibility.
Racist cops have used “I go where the crime is” as an exuse to basically hunt minorities for sport. Do not allow them to say “the AI model said this was efficient” and pretend it is not their own full and knowing bias directing them.
That’s not even the problem here… AI, big data, a consultant - it’s all just an excuse to point to when they do what they wanted to do anyways, profile “criminals” and harass them
That’s already tried. In the end the AI is just an electronic version of existing police biases.
Police files more reports and arrests in poor neighborhoods because they patrol more there. Reports get used as training data and AI predicts more crime in poor areas. Those areas now get over patrolled and the tension leads to more crime. The system is celebrated for being correct.
You make it sound like a bug instead of a feature. But for the capitalist ruling class it is working exactly as intended.
If you give these dummies a magic eight ball and tell them it’s real “police tool” they will shoot the first person it says, “signs point to yes” on when they ignorantly ask, “has this person I suspect with no evidence done crimes before or will they in the future?”
Have they hired Tom Cruise yet?
How ‘anarcho’ of him
If anyone is curious as to what this type of system looks like, watch psycho pass…
The Guardian Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [Medium] (Click to view Full Report)
Name: The Guardian Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: Mixed
Country: United Kingdom
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.The Guardian is “mixed” and yet Times of Israel is “high” for factual reporting. MBFC is trash.
Disappointing. Any reason to believe this might be a mistake or an outlier? I was just starting to seriously consider adding mbfc to the usual set of tools I depend on online.
I don’t have evidence of this but I believe the owner/operator of the site is pro Israel and this bleeds through into the ratings, which are not produced in any objective or repeatable fashion. It says Times of Israel has not failed any fact checks, but it clearly doesn’t investigate this in a systematic way. I personally reported one particularly egregious and obviously false headline some months back and never heard anything.
It lists the fact checks the Guardian failed (totally fair), but overall I would say most similar websites rank them highly for factual content and for good reason.
For stuff unrelated to Israel I think MBFC is pretty solid if a little unclear and opaque in it’s approach.
just block that not it has dubious ratings and is honestly an eye sore.
Honestly, I’m blocking it simply because I’m tired of opening a thread thinking there’s a seed of discussion, and it’s just MBFC bot. Will probably do the same with AutoTLDR. This isn’t working; comments might be the wrong interface for this.
I swear yesterday it said The Guardian was “very high” or maybe I just was 🤔
Trump and their kids will be doing crime for a long long time. They are ruzzian mafiosos.
That guy is using every resource available to secure his seat… must be desperate.
The world’s first “anarchist” president, everyone.
That’s a new oxymoron for me thank you
He’s a liberal libertarian! That’s what he’s been saying after consulting his *checks notes* cloned dog.
jajajajajajjaja
“Anarchocapitalist”
And honestly, even that’s bullshit. You can’t be anarchocapitalist and a social conservative.
Anarchy: yet another term hijacked by fascists and mangled beyond recognition.
It’s just extreme economic liberalism, small/no Government so that corporations can rule over us as warlords. It’s a smokescreen for corporate feudalism.
As far as I can tell, ancaps are a tiny group of economics nerds that don’t see the obvious flaw everyone else does. They legitimately do think we can have a comfortable, livable society where you never have to do anything you don’t agree to, in their specific sense of positive agreement.
Actual fascists go for more convincing canards.
lol what. I’ve never seen any ancap who isn’t fascist by another name. all capitalists are conservatives.
You, sir/ma’am, are truly the most radical. I’m trembling at your epic levels of socialist fervour. You win, you can move on to a different thread now.
mfw i have nothing relevant to say:
Logical responses are only for logical statements.
sure buddy. “i was merely pretending” in action
Yeah but a lot of “anarcho” capitalists claim to be just another type of anarchist. This is the point I’m making, which is that they are very much not real anarchists.
Since it’s a shallow ideology with no strong moral principles, it’s not surprising that its adherents hold contradictory viewpoints like social conservatism.
Normal anarchism seems just about as coherent to me, TBH. In both cases they rely on a mythical hard-power vacuum that doesn’t instantly collapse.
Depends on the strain. Whether it’s possible in large scale society is an open question but social anarchists at least propose credible ideas. Basically there would still be structures and organizations for managing society, they would just be non-hierarchical and democratic. These structures would have to be carefully designed to be able to maintain themselves without devolving into a state, but also be organized and strong enough to withstand external takeover.
Only one way to find out if it will work. But Rojava and Zapatistas have been doing similar things for some years now with moderate success.
And that’s about as detailed as the plans ever get. How exactly are the non-hierarchical democratic councils laid out, and how are they any different from normal representative government/state? At best anarchists describe representative democracy with generous recall rules, at worst I actually have heard “all rules are repressive, there will be no rules, no further explanation will be provided”. And that’s not even getting into the economic questions, if this is going to be a non-market system.
Only one way to find out if it will work.
I’ve seen pretty much the same argument from ancaps about their self-contained Gordian knot of contracts that never collapses. It’s true, weird ideas that sound impractical work sometimes, so I can’t prove it wouldn’t, but I’m not holding my breath.
As for those couple examples, I suspect they work in a very different way from the theory, although again I can’t prove it. Republican Spain never really approached the Anarchist ideal, at least, and that’s the one there’s good information on.
The fact that I am not an expert in the exact structures a hypothetical anarchist society could take doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Furthermore, as you allude to, their implementation in the real world would likely differ from any theoretical structure based on the experience and practical needs of the people involved. There are people building such organizations as we speak, and hopefully, as they gain experience, we can collectively learn which structures work and which ones do not.
In general I see anarchism as more of an aspirational process. The goals are to achieve human liberation to the maximum extent possible. Maybe it’s not possible to achieve complete global liberation (and I agree not to the extent that some individualist anarchists believe, i.e. the no rules people) but there’s good reason to believe it can be achieved to a much greater extent than current societies. I think that’s worth working towards, and even if we did achieve a more liberated society like Republican Spain, that process wouldn’t end there. We would keep iterating and tinkering to find the best and most free society we can reasonably attain.
I can certainly agree with all of that, even if we disagree on whether present liberal democracies are kinda far, or totally far from the ideal.
The world’s first fourth world country back at it again
