AI Expert Falsely Fined By Automated AI System, Proving System and Human Reviewe...
source link: https://slashdot.org/story/24/02/18/1731213/ai-expert-falsely-fined-by-automated-ai-system-proving-system-and-human-reviewers-failed
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
AI Expert Falsely Fined By Automated AI System, Proving System and Human Reviewers Failed
"Dutch motorist Tim Hansenn was fined 380 euros for using his phone while driving," reports the Jerusalem Post. "But there was one problem: He wasn't using his phone at all..."
Hansenn, who works with AI as part of his job with the firm Nippur, found the photo taken by the smart cameras. In it, he was clearly scratching his head with his free hand. Writing in a blog post in Nippur, Hansenn took the time to explain what he thinks went wrong with the Dutch police AI and the smart camera they used, the Monocam, and how it could be improved. In one experiment he discussed with [Belgian news outlet] HLN, Hansenn said the AI confused a pen with a toothbrush — identifying it as a pen when it was just held in his hand and as a toothbrush when it was close to a mouth. As such, Hansenn told HLN that it seems the AI may just automatically conclude that if someone holds a hand near their head, it means they're using a phone.
"We are widely assured that AIs are subject to human checking," notes Slashdot reader Bruce66423 — but did a human police officer just defer to what the AI was reporting? Clearly the human-in-the-loop also made a mistake.
Hansenn will have to wait up to six months to see if his appeal of the fine has gone through. And the article notes that the Netherlands has been using this technology for several years, with plans for even more automated monitoring in the years to come...
The only mention of a possible human reviewer - at least in TFS - is in a speculation by a Slashdotter.
TFA itself includes this sentence - "Since a human police officer would have had to approve this fine by looking at the picture, that means human error was at fault, too." I can see at least two possibilities:
1) The automated detection has shown itself good enough that this particular human reviewer has gotten into the habit of not actually inspecting the photo, just out of laziness.
2) Since these sorts of systems are typically used as a money-saving alternative to a human workflow, the total number of humans paid to do the job is significantly less than the number required to actually do it correctly - meaning they can't actually review the photo in any detail.
My money's on #2 (although #1 and #2 aren't mutually exclusive). Even if the system didn't work all that well, I doubt there would be many challenges because, frankly, the majority of drivers probably DO use their phones while driving - so most people wouldn't bother to challenge, they'd probably just assume they'd gotten caught somewhere and pay the fine.
-
Human reviewer likely failed intentionally, as there is no penalty of any kind and this is a revenue-generating enterprise. How many innocent people would just pay the fine as they are too busy and too well-off to care?
-
Would the human reviewer need to show up in court if the ticket was contested?
-
Typical anti-government rant.
1) No sorry there's no significant revenue raised by these cameras. They barely cover their own costs of administration.
2) The appeals process for the fine is trivial, and the fine includes the image used for justify the fine in the infringement notice, so no one is going to pay anything - especially not the Dutch. -
That's the problems with cops. A decent chunk of the budget comes from steal...writing tickets to the taxpayers that pay their salaries. If your reliance for brand new cars and tanks on the taxpayers dime comes from tickets, why would they care if the process brings out the truth? Line their pockets with corrupted money.
In America, cops care more about using perverted laws, civil forfeiture, than any traffic ticket.
-
That's the problem with people with strong opinions, but not much knowledge. The budget of the police in the Netherlands does not come from writing traffic tickets.
-
American cops.
-
I get you can only use ad homeniem attacks with your arguments, but reading and comprehension is key. You should've learned it when you went to elementary school.
-
-
-
How do you know there is no penalty? Do you work there?
-
-
Introduce a bill that if the AI incorrectly identifies the driver as using a cell phone, and a human could tell that is not the case, then the police department would need to pay the falsely accused $100,000.
If the police department says "No, we're not going to do that", then that proves that they have no faith in the AI system and their human backup. If they agree, then you will bet that the human will filter out any false positives.-
Or, since there's an appeal process in place, and that appeal process is as trivial as logging into a website, and all information necessary for the fine is provided in the infringement notice you can fuck off with you $100,000 fine for 5minutes of work.
While you chase your perfect system (presumably with the intention of breaking every government institution so they can't actually enforce anything on anyone, because... you know... nothing is perfect), I'd rather just let the occasion false positive follo
-
My mom has never used a computer in her life (she's refused, and now it's too late for her to learn). That website appeals process is not usable by millions of people like my mom.
-
This still doesnâ(TM)t seem right. It should not be the burden of the accused to deal with the false accusation. Lots of stupid nonsense takes 5 minutesâ¦and guess what? More and more of everyoneâ(TM)s day should not be taken up by stupid nonsense.
The point may be strengthened by pointing out that driving is a privilege requiring various responsibilities, not a right, but that still seems weak.
-
-
-
It's normal for camera systems like this in Europe to share photo evidence at the point you are informed of the fine. Given the details of this story this almost certainly happened here. If that is correct then this does seem like typical FUD about AI. The system made a simple mistake based on overly simplistic analysis, but probably still has an accuracy notably in excess of 99%. People fined see the picture and can tell clearly enough for themselves if their is evidence, contesting is fine and the appeal
-
I avoid making and receiving calls while driving, hands free or otherwise.
The idea that hands free calls are significantly better - that somehow the issue is having your hand up by your ear rather than the distraction of being involved in a phone call, while you should be focusing on driving - is frankly laughable [washingtonpost.com]. But people like to pretend to themselves that they're making responsible choices even when in truth they're simply justifying their own selfish behavior, to use your terminology.
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK