How do you figure that’s worse than random? Randomly attempting to predict crimes would likely be 0% accurate. I’m not supporting predictive policing at all, just curious what brought you to that conclusion.
There are near infinite failure conditions and few successful conditions.
If you randomly selected a citizen as the culprit every time a crime was committed the only percentage of accuracy it wouldn’t be is 0%, because it’s inevitable you would be right at least once.
The police need crimes and criminals to justify their existence. If the criminals are selected by a computer program, that is sufficient for their purposes.
How did they manage to do so spectacularly badly? I think part of the problem is that they were trying to predict times and locations, rather than focusing on individual offenders. Past record is highly predicitive of future behaviour, i.e. if an offender has committed assault half a dozen times, it is highly probable that they will commit another assault or similar violent offence again, we just dont know when or where. Poor quality data may also be part of it - garbage in, garbage out
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
That’s because you’re not engraving the suspects name in wooden balls based on the dreams of 3 people sleeping in some weird hot tubs.
To be honest in the US, most crimes are already Minority Reports
Less than 1%? Did they forget to flip a boolean condition?
Like that’s worse than random, it’s worse than if you intentionally wanted to be wrong.
How do you figure that’s worse than random? Randomly attempting to predict crimes would likely be 0% accurate. I’m not supporting predictive policing at all, just curious what brought you to that conclusion.
There are near infinite failure conditions and few successful conditions.
If you randomly selected a citizen as the culprit every time a crime was committed the only percentage of accuracy it wouldn’t be is 0%, because it’s inevitable you would be right at least once.
I know how they could make it thousands of times more accurate. Just rewrite it to always point at Wall Street.
The police need crimes and criminals to justify their existence. If the criminals are selected by a computer program, that is sufficient for their purposes.
How did they manage to do so spectacularly badly? I think part of the problem is that they were trying to predict times and locations, rather than focusing on individual offenders. Past record is highly predicitive of future behaviour, i.e. if an offender has committed assault half a dozen times, it is highly probable that they will commit another assault or similar violent offence again, we just dont know when or where. Poor quality data may also be part of it - garbage in, garbage out
Ah shit are we already going minority report and psycho pass?