> Omnilert later admitted the incident was a “false positive” but claimed the system “functioned as intended,” saying its purpose is to “prioritize safety and awareness through rapid human verification.”
This exact scenario is discussed in [1]. The "human in the loop" failed, but we're supposed to blame the human, not the AI (or the way it was implemented). The humans serve as "moral crumple zones".
"""
The emphasis on human oversight as a protective mechanism allows governments and vendors to have it both ways: they can promote an algorithm by proclaiming how its capabilities exceed those of humans, while simultaneously defending the algorithm and those responsible for it from scrutiny by pointing to the security (supposedly) provided by human oversight.
"""
This exact scenario is discussed in [1]. The "human in the loop" failed, but we're supposed to blame the human, not the AI (or the way it was implemented). The humans serve as "moral crumple zones".
""" The emphasis on human oversight as a protective mechanism allows governments and vendors to have it both ways: they can promote an algorithm by proclaiming how its capabilities exceed those of humans, while simultaneously defending the algorithm and those responsible for it from scrutiny by pointing to the security (supposedly) provided by human oversight. """
[1]: https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/30/a-neck-in-a-noose/