06-28-2020, 01:54 PM
(06-28-2020, 11:20 AM)fullmetal Wrote: GR: your argument boils down to "errors are acceptable."Errors are unacceptable? Isn't that straight out of the anti-vaxxer playbook?
They are not.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882683463...-in-michig
https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-facia...forcement/
https://www.eff.org/pages/face-recognition
https://www.asisonline.org/security-mana...mographic/
https://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/1820554...ition-tech
in any new software protocol errors are inevitable. You rely on common sense (sorely lacking in the Michigan anecdote) to mitigate and minimize.
Greater sophistication leads to more and reliability. You don't get there without use and refinement.
Voice recognition with various automated assistants (Siri, Google Assistant, Alexa) is now outstandingly reliable and getting better. It did not begin at that level of refinement. You can't reach that level of refinement without continued development.
You use the tool as a tool - not a solution. The problem in Michigan was undue reliance by law enforcement on the tool. That happens, no matter what tools you use. Continued education is the answer.
To assume that the 2020 version of any software technology is definitive, that the problems and crudities with use can't be resolved and eliminated, is plain silly, and belied by every software category you can name - including the platform I"m writing on.
The articles you cite, by the way, are all polemical.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.