In any system, there are false positives and false negatives. In some situations (like a high recall disease detection) false negatives are much worse than false positives, because the cost of a false positive is a more rigorous screening.
But in this case both are bad. If it was a false negative students might need therapy for a more tragic reason.
Aside from improving the quality of the detection model, we should try to reduce the “cost” of both failure modes as much as possible. Putting a human in the loop or having secondary checks are ways to do that.
In this case false positives are far, far worse than false negatives. A false negative in this system does not mean a tragedy will occur, because there are many other preventative measures in place. And never mind the fact that this country refuses to even address the primary cause of gun violence in the first place: the ubiquity of guns in our society. So systems like this is what we end up with when we ignore to address the problem of guns and choose to deal the downstream effects of that instead.
> the primary cause of gun violence in the first place: the ubiquity of guns in our society
I would have gone with “a normalized sense of hopelessness and indignity which causes people to feel like violence is the only way they can have any agency in life” considering “gun” is the adjective and “violence” is the actual thing you're talking about.
Both are true. The underlying oppressive, lonely, pro-bullying culture creates the tension. The proliferation of high lethality weapons makes it more likely that tension will eventually release in the form of a mass tragedy.
Improvement in either area would be a net positive for society. Improvement in both areas is ideal but solving proliferation seems a lot more straightforward than fixing the generally miserable society problem.
I think there’s probably some correlation between ‘generally miserable society’ and ‘we think it’s ok to have children surveiled by AI’
I tend to categorize these under a dutch idiom which I can’t describe, but which is abundantly clear in pictorial form:
https://klimapedia.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Dweilen_met...
"Treating the symptoms not the cause" would be the english equivalent.
(for others: the Dutch expression is "Dweilen met de kraan open", "Mopping with the tap open")
To be clear, the false negative here would be a student who has brought a gun to a school and the computer ignores it. That is a situation where potentially multiple people can be killed in a short amount of time. It is not far, far worse to send cops.
Depends on the false positive rate doesn't it. If police are being sent to storm a school every week due to a false positive, that is quite bad. And people will become conditioned to not care about reports of a gun at a school because of all the false positives.
For what I’m saying, no it doesn’t because I’m just comparing a single instance of false positive to a single instance of false negative. Neither is desirable.
> But in this case both are bad. If it was a false negative students might need therapy for a more tragic reason.
Given the probability of police officers in the USA taking any action as hostile and then ending up shooting him a false positive here is the same as swatting someone.
The system here sent the police off to kill someone.
Yep. Think of it as the new exciting version of swatting. Naturally, one will still need to figure out common ways to force a specific misattribution, but, sadly, I think there will be people working on it ( if there aren't already ).
[dead]
Sure. But school shootings are also common in the US. A student who has brought a gun to a school is very likely not harmless. So false negatives aren’t free either.
What's the proportion of gun-carrying to shooting in schools?
Well guns aren’t allowed in schools at all. It’s a felony. So if your point is that the ratio is low, that’s only because the denominator is way too big.
No point, a question.
I'd suspect kids would take guns to 'be cool', show friends, make threats without intention to actually use them. Also, intention to harm that wasn't followed through; intention to defend themselves if threatened; other reasons?
Probably no sound stats, but I'm curious about it, so asked.
Considering the slices of the socioeconomic ladder mostly involved here, I'd bet that "it won't grow legs if it's on me" dwarfs all other motives for bringing guns to school.
I was swatted once. Girlfriend's house. Someone called 911 and said they'd seen me kill a neighbor, drag their body into the house, and was now holding my gf's family hostage.
We answered the screams at the door to guns pointed at our faces, and countless cops.
It was explained to us that this was the restrained version. We got a knock.
Unfortunately, I understand why these responses can't be neutered too much. You just never know.
In this case, though, you COULD know, COULD verify with a human before pointing guns at people, or COULD not deploy a half finished product in a way that prioritizes your profit over public safety.
s/COULD/SHOULD/g
Happened to a friend of mine by an ex GF who said he was on psych meds (true though he is nonviolent with no history) and that he was threatening to kill his parents. NYPD SWAT no-knock kicked the door down to his apartment which terrorized his elderly parents as they pointed guns at their son (in his words, "machine guns".) BUT because he has psych issues and on meds he was forced into a cop car in front of the whole neighborhood to get a psych evaluation. He only received an apology from the cops who said they have no choice but to follow procedure.
edit should add sorry to hear that.
> who said he was on psych meds (true though he is nonviolent with no history)
I don't understand the connection here
Do the cops not ever get tired of being fooled like this? Or do they just enjoy the chance to go out in their army-surplus armored cars and pretend to be special forces?
I had convos with cops about swatting, the good ones aren't happy to go kick down someone's door who isn't about to harm someone but feel they can't chance making a fatally wrong call when it isn't swatting, also they have procedures to follow and if they don't the outcome is on them personally and potentially legally.
As for bad cops they look for any reason to go act like aggro billy badasses.
> the good ones ...
uh-huh
> if they don't the outcome is on them personally and potentially legally.
Bullshit, they're rarely held accountable when they straight up murder people, and even then "accountable" is "have to go get a different job". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_John_T._Williams
ACAB
It seems entirely in line to not be held accountable for terrorizing/murdering people when you are held accountable for doing the opposite?
It just means the police force is an instrument of terror.
>It just means the police force is an instrument of terror.
always had been dot jpeg.
[dead]
This is a really good question. Sadly the answer is that they think it's how the system is meant to work. Well that seems to be the answer that I see coming from police spokespeople
Its likely procedure that they have to follow (see my other post in this thread.)
I hate to say this but I get it. Imagine a scenario happens where they decide "sounds phony. stand down." only for it to be real and people are hurt/killed because the "cops ignored our pleas for help and did nothing." which would be a horrible mistake they could be liable for, never mind the media circus and PR damage. So they treat all scenarios as real and figure it out after they knock/kick in the door.
To that end, we should all have a cop assigned to us. One cop per citizen, with a gun pointed at our head at all times. Imagine a scenario happens where someone does something and that cop wasn't there? Better to be safe.
Why stop at one? Imagine how much safer we’d be with TWO cops per citizen! And all those extra jobs that would be created!
And then cops for the cops!
I don't think you know how policing works in America. To cops, there are sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves; they are sheepdogs protecting us sheep from the criminals. Nobody needs to watch the sheepdogs!
But lets think about their analogy a little more: sheepdogs and wolves are both canines. Hmm.
Also "funny" how quickly they can reclassify any person as a "wolf", like this student. Hmm.
> Nobody needs to watch the sheepdogs!
A sheepdog that bites a sheep for any reason is killed.
Maybe we should move beyond binary thinking here. Yeah, it's worth sending someone to investigate but also making some effort to verify who the call is coming from - to get their identity, and to ask them something simple like to describe the house (in this example) so the arriving cops will know they go to the right address. Now of course you can get a description of the house with Google Street Maps, but 911 dispatchers can solicit some information like what color car is currently parked outside or suchlike. They could also look up who occupies the house and make a phone call while cops are on the way.
Everyone knows swatting is a real thing that happens and that it's problematic, so why don't police departments have procedures in place which include that possibility? Who benefits from hyped-up police responses to false claims of criminal activity?
Yes, there's a middle ground here.
My daughter was swatted, but at the time she lived in a town where the cops weren't militarized goon squads. What happened was two uniformed cops politely knocked on her door, had a chat with her, and asked if they could come in and look around. She allowed them, they thanked her and the issue was resolved.
This is the way. Investigate, even a little, before deploying great force.
Cops don't have a duty to protect people, so "cops ignored our pleas for help and did nothing" is a-ok, no liability (thank you, qualified immunity). They very much do not treat all scenarios as real; they go gung-ho when they want to and hang back for a few hours "assessing the situation" when they don't.
> they go gung-ho when they want to and hang back for a few hours "assessing the situation" when they don't.
Yeah. They were happy to take their sweet time assessing everything safely outside the buildings at Uvalde.
I'm a paramedic, who has personally attended a swatting call where every single detail was so egregiously wrong, but police still went in, no-knock, causing thousands of dollars damage, that, to be clear, they have absolutely zero liability for, but thankfully no injuries.
"I can see them in the upstairs window" - of a single story home.
"The house is red brick" - it was dark grey wood.
"No cars in the driveway" - there was two.
Cops still said "hmm, still could be legit" and battered down the front door, deployed flashbangs.
There are more options here than "do nothing" and "go in guns blazing".
Establishing the probable trustworthiness of the report isn't black magic. Ask the reportee for details, question the neighbours, look in through the windows, just send two plain clothed officers pretending to be salesmen to knock on the door first? Continously adjust the approach as new information comes in. This isn't rocket science, ffs.
See my other comment in this thread. I've personally witnessed trying to ask the caller verifying details because dispatchers were suspicious.
Even with multiple major discrepancies, police still decided they should go in, no-knock.
It doesn't make sense. If you were holding people hostage, you'd have demands for their release. Windows could be peeked into. If you dragged a dead body into a house, there'd be evidence of that.
False positives can effectively lead to false negatives too. If too many alarms end in teens getting swatted (or worse) for eating chips, people might ignore the alarm if an actual school shooter triggers it. Might assume the AI is just screaming about a bag of chips again.
I think a “true positive” is an issue as well if the protocol to manage it isn’t appropriate. If the kid was armed with something other than nacho cheese, the provocative reaction could have easily set off a tragic chain of events.
Reality is there are guns in schools every day. “Solutions” like this aren’t making anyone safer. School shooters don’t fit this profile - they are planners, not impulsive people hanging out at the social event.
More disturbing is the meh attitude of both the company and the school administration. They almost engineered a tragedy through incompetence, and learned nothing.