The algorithm itself is just a big “whatever”. The key issue here is that some assumptive piece of shit decided to conclude, based on partial information, that those women would be safe in the future.
An Algorithm Told Police She Was Safe. Then Her Husband Killed Her.
Submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
lvxferre@mander.xyz 3 months ago
NutWrench@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The police accepted the software’s judgment and Ms. Hemid went home with no further protection.
This is what happens when you rely on your Nintendos, instead of using your damn brains.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 months ago
And that’s why I’m against ALL such things.
Not because they can’t be done right and you can’t teach people to use them.
But because there’s a slippery slope of human nature where people want to offload the burden of decision to a machine, an oracle, a die, a set of bird intestines. The genie is out and they will do that again and again, but in a professional organization, like police, one can make a decision of creating fewer opportunities for such catastrophes.
The rule is that people shouldn’t use machines above their brains, as one other commenter says, and they should only use this in a logical OR with their own judgment made earlier, as another commenter says, but the problem is in human nature and I’d rather not introduce this particular point of failure to police, politics, anything juridical and military.
match@pawb.social 3 months ago
And that’s why I’m against ALL such things.
Absolutely, ACAB
aport@programming.dev 3 months ago
Even when given the best and most sophisticated tools and equipment available, police will manage to fuck things up at every opportunity because they’re utterly incompetent.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 months ago
But the system seems to be better than police officers. Which is entirely believable. Humans have all kinds of biases that make the decisions we make far less than desirable.
Per the article, it has decreased the risk of repeated violence and its the best we have. Why would you want to go back to a worse system?
barsoap@lemm.ee 3 months ago
The way to use these kinds of systems is to have the judge came to an independent decision, then, after that’s keyed in, the AI spits out theirs and whichever predicts more danger is then acted on.
Relatedly, the way you have an AI select people and companies to spot-check by tax investigators is not to show investigators the AI scores, but mix in AI suspicions among a stream of randomly selected people.
Relatedly, the way you have AI involved in medical diagnoses is not to tell the human doctor results, but suggest additional tests to be made. The “have you ruled out lupus” approach.
And from what I’ve heard the medical profession actually got that right from the very beginning. They know what priming and bias is. Law enforcement? I fear we’ll have to ELI5 them the basics for the next five hundred years.
madsen@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I don’t think there’s any AI involved. The article mentions nothing of the sort, it’s at least 8 years old (according to the article) and the input is 35 yes/no questions, so it’s probably just some points assigned for the answers and maybe some simple arithmetic.
barsoap@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Sounds like an expert system then (just judging by the age) which was AI before the whole machine learning craze, in any case you need to take the same kind of care when integrating them into whatever real-world structures there are.
Medicine used them with quite some success problem being they take a long time to develop because humans need to input expert knowledge, and then they get outdated quite quickly.
Back to the system though: 35 questions is not enough for these kinds of questions. And that’s not an issue of number of questions, but things like body language and tone of voice not being included.
so it’s probably just some points assigned for the answers and maybe some simple arithmetic.
Why yes, that’s all that machine learning is, a bunch of statistics :)
match@pawb.social 3 months ago
But that doesn’t save money and the only reason the capitalists want AI is saving money
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The algorithm:
isSafe = random();
if isSafe >.5 println (“everything is fine\n”);
silence7@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
per the article, it’s rather better than that.
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I admit to having grossly oversimplified things. Sorry.
dukethorion@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I remember years ago when they said the value of our lives would be determined by a panel of people.
Now its by a machine.
masquenox@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Oh, it’s far worse than that… the value of our lives have been determined by the (so-called) “free market” for a very long time now.
The machine is simply going to streamline the process.
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 3 months ago
This comment is half a century late.
NASDAQ opened in 1971.
andallthat@lemmy.world 3 months ago
About 20 new cases of gender violence arrive every day, each requiring investigation. Providing police protection for every victim would be impossible given staff sizes and budgets.
I think machine-learning is not the key part, the quote above is. All these 20 people a day come to the police for protection, a very small minority of them might be just paranoid, but I’m sure that most of them had some bad shit done to them by their partner already and (in an ideal world) would all deserve some protection. The algorithm’s “success” in defined in the article as reducing probability of repeat attacks, especially the ones eventually leading to death.
The police are trying to focus on the ones who are deemed to be the most at risk. A well-trained algorithm can help reduce the risk vs the judgement of the possibly overworked or inexperienced human handling the complaint? I’ll take that. But people are going to die anyway. Just, hopefully, a bit less of them and I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s the machine’s fault when they do.
Telorand@reddthat.com 3 months ago
Sounds like a triage situation. That really sucks for the women affected.
fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
Is it really too much to want enough resources to respond appropriately to all cases?
profdc9@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Computers are only at fault when its convenient to blame them.
dojan@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Advocates: take survivors of abuse seriously.
Society: Let’s have computers tell us what to do!I mean I guess the risk of repeated murder-suicide is pretty low…
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
In the late 1970s (I was a kid) the computer is always right was a common sarcastic parody of all the people who actually believed it.
We’d discoverin the 1980s it was possible to have missing data, insufficient data or erroneous data.
turmacar@lemmy.world 3 months ago
It’s a sentiment at least as old as the first things that we now call computers.
On two occasions I have been asked, “Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?” … I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
—Charles Babbage
JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 months ago
As if humans can magically make correct decisions with incorrect information lmao. So true.
dinckelman@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Why do we live in a dystopian hellscape
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Capitalism.
blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 3 months ago
People are complicated creatures that can’t be easily fit into niche categories despite our brains need to do so.
Culture.
jBlight@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Minority Report: the beta test
Wispy2891@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The computer response should be treated as just an indication and in all cases a human needs to decide to override that
Otherwise we’ll all become useless pieces of a simulation
I went to the bank to ask a loan and then it got rejected because the computer said I didn’t met the parameters by just 40 euro. Ah ok, I told the clerk, just lower the amount that I’m asking or spread it over a longer period. No, because after the quote is done and I signed the authorization for the algorithm to perform credit score, it can’t do it again in 3 months. What?? Call a supervisor and let them override it, 40 euro is so minimal that it’s not that big issue. No, impossible. So that means each single employee in the bank is just an interface to the computer and can be fired at will?
Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Pedantic Mathematician here.
If it failed, then it was a heuristic, rather than an algorithm.
Clearly, that’s the most important thing about this post.
You’re welcome.
silence7@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
Pretty much anything trying to predict human behavior is a heuristic; people using them as if they’ve got some kind of certainty is a problem.
Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Yes, exactly.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Why not both? I think you meant condescending mathematician…
Floey@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Minority Don’t Report
Entropywins@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Cracked me up thanks!
roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Despite this article, I’m still not convinced that the algorithms aren’t better. The policy states that people need to use their best judgement and can override the algorithms. The article argues that the algorithms are being over relied on. The article mentions in passing, however, that the statistics were worse before the algorithm was introduced.
The point of the matter is, best judgement can be shitty. Your average cop has no idea what questions to ask without a list and how important they are per research. Some suggestions are too continue using the tool but use things like psychologists to administer it. The only way you could reasonably have a psych on call for every police station is to make it a remote interview, which frankly doesn’t seem better to me.
In the end, the unstated problem is resources and how best to utilize them to prevent the violence. I’m sure Spain’s policy could be improved but shoring it up with an algorithm is a good practice.
realitista@lemm.ee 3 months ago
More data for the algorithm then.
HawlSera@lemm.ee 3 months ago
Can we stop having AI do… anything?
roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Algorithms aren’t AI. They’re standardization measures in cases like this. Hell you don’t even need computers for many of them. We use tons in healthcare to classify risk, decide on treatment options, and even decide on how much medication to give.
IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 3 months ago
I have no issues with using ML to predict outcomes. It’s going to be wrong sometimes, so will humans. The system just needs review and input from humans understanding the model.
Norgur@fedia.io 3 months ago
I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently?
Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from "algorithm is to blame for deaths" into "algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases", which of course it can't...
Vanth@reddthat.com 3 months ago
I also wonder if the algorithm is being used to override the victim.
Like if she asked for help, if she didn’t want to go home and wanted to go to a shelter and get a restraining order. But they said, “low risk, nope, no resources for you”. Depending on her situation, home to her abuser may have been her only option then. In which case, this is a level of horror the article didn’t cover. The article really doesn’t explain how the risk level output by the algorithm is used.
madsen@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The article mentions that one woman (Stefany González Escarraman) went for a restraining order the day after the system deemed her at “low risk” and the judge denied it referring to the VioGen score.
It also says:
You could argue that the problem isn’t so much the algorithm itself as it is the level of reliance upon it. The algorithm isn’t unproblematic though. The fact that it just spits out a simple score: “negligible”, “low”, “medium”, “high”, “extreme” is, IMO, an indicator that someone’s trying to conflate far too many factors into a single dimension. I have a really hard time believing that anyone knowledgeable in criminal psychology and/or domestic abuse would agree that 35 yes or no questions would be anywhere near sufficient to evaluate the risk of repeated abuse. (I know nothing about domestic abuse or criminal psychology, so I could be completely wrong.)
Apart from that, I also find this highly problematic:
nalinna@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Could a human have judged it better? Maybe not. I think a better question to ask is, "Should anyone be sent back into a violent domestic situation with no additional protection, no matter the calculated risk? And as someone who has been on the receiving end of that conversation, I would say no…no one should be told that, even though they were in a terrifying, life-threatening situation, they will not be provided protection, and no further steps will be taken to keep them from being injured again, or from being killed next time. But even without algorithms, that happens constantly…the only thing the algorithm accomplishes is that the investigator / social worker / etc doesn’t have to have any kind of personal connection with the victim, so they don’t have to feel some kind of way for giving an innocent person a death sentence because they were just doing what the computer told them to.
Final thought: When you pair this practice with the ongoing conversation around the legality of women seeking divorce without their husband’s consent, you have a terrifying and consistently deadly situation.
Vanth@reddthat.com 3 months ago
Louder for anyone in the back in the US thinking it doesn’t sound so bad when Republicans like Josh Hawley and JD Vance call for an end to no-fault divorces.
That’s right, one of our VP candidates wants to disallow people from divorcing their abusive partners without jumping through hoops that will take months if not years, and leaves them susceptible to their abusive partner, now even angrier than before that the victim would dare try to leave.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 months ago
This even works for people pulling the trigger. Following orders, sed lex dura lex, et cetera ad infinitum.
Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
It reminds me of the debate around self driving cars. Tesla has a flawed implementation of self driving tech, that’s trying to gather all the information it needs through camera inputs vs using multiple sensor types. This doesn’t always work, and has led to some questionable crashes where it definitely looks like a human driver could have avoided the crash.
However, even with Tesla’s flawed self driving, They’re supposed to have far fewer wrecks than humans driving. According to Tesla’s safety report, Tesla’s in self driving mode average 5-6 million miles per accident vs 1-1.5 million miles for Tesla drivers not using self driving (US average is 500-750k miles per accident).
So a system like this doesn’t have to be perfect to do a far better job than people can, but that doesn’t mean it won’t feel terrible for the unlucky people who things go poorly for.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Wow Tesla said that Tesla was safe!?!? This changes everything.
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That report fails to take into account that the Cybertruck is already a wreck when it rolls off the assembly line.
OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Unfortunately, this is bad statistics.
The Teslas in self driving mode tend to be used on main roads, and most accidents per mile happen on the small side streets. People are also much safer where Teslas are driven than the these statistics suggest.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 3 months ago
An algorithm is never to blame, some pencil necked desk jockey decided the criteria to get help that was used to create the algorithm, the blame is entirely on them.
That said, I doubt it would make any difference if a human was in the loop. An algorithm is still al algorithm, even if it’s applied by a human. We usually just call that a “policy” though. People have been murdered by the paper sea for decades before we started calling it “algorithms”.
yesman@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The article is not about how the AI is responsible for the death. It’s likely that the woman would have died in the counterfactual.
The question is not “how effective is AI”? The question is should life or death decisions be made by an electrified Oracle at Delphi. You must answer this question before “is AI effective” becomes relevant.
If somebody was adjudicating traffic court with Tarot cards, would you ask: well how accurate are the cards compared to a judge?
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Decisions should be made by whomever or whatever is most effective. That’s not even a debate. If the tarot cards were right more often than the judge, fire the judge and get me a deck. Because the judge is clearly ineffective.
You can’t privilege an approach just because it sounds more reasonable. It also has to BE more reasonable. It’s crazy to say “I’m happy being wrong because I’m more comfortable with the process”
The trick of course is to find fair ways to measure effectiveness accurately and make sure it’s repeatable. That’s a rabbit hole of challenges.
madsen@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Your point is valid regardless but the article mentions nothing about AI. (“Algorithm” doesn’t mean “AI”.)
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Here’s another quote further down:
So no, not a scandal, it seems it is helping, but perhaps could be better. At least that’s my read.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 months ago
It implies that a human would have been worse. Or at least that an average human would be worse, the ones making the decision.
madsen@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The article says:
Granted, neither “negligible” or “low risk” means “no risk”, but I think 8% and 14% are far too high numbers for those categories.
Furthermore, there’s this crucial bit:
So in the 98 murders they reviewed, the algorithm put more than 50% of them at negligible or low risk for repeat abuse. That’s a fucking coin flip!
roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 months ago
You’ll get that result without an algorithm as well unfortunately. A domestic violence interview often doesn’t result in you getting the truth of what happens because the victim is often economically and emotionally dependent on their partner. It’s helpful to have an algorithm that makes you ask the right questions but there’s still no way I know of to get the right answers of those questions from a victim 100 percent of the time.
EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 months ago
This is not at all how you interpret that number.
Let’s say there is a group of 100 people. 8 get killed. If you randomly assigned them into two groups, the expected number would be that you would be right about 4 and wrong about 46.
But say you predict that 96 will be fine, and 4 would be murdered…and all 4 of those are murdered…well, about the 8 killed you would only have a 50% chance of being right.
Just a coin flip? Even though you were right 96% of the time?
silence7@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
My impression from the article is more that they’re not doing any kind of garbage-in assessment: nobody is making sure they’re getting answers about the right person (eg: some women date more than one guy) and some women don’t feel safe giving accurate answers to the police, and there aren’t good failsafes available for when it’s wrong; you’re forced to hire legal counsel and pursue a change via the courts.
nalinna@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That and, their action for low-risk is all wrong. The stakes are too high to not give someone help, regardless of the risk level.