Comment by vconnor
18 hours ago
> It is like the best student in your classroom tells you 2 + 2 = 5, and you naturally feel compelled to believe him, even there is clear evidence against the claim.
Yes, but it is still your fault. “I am dumb and I was deceived” is no valid defense, least of all for a police officer.
I'm not saying the police has no fault. Using AI assist without secondary verification is never good idea, at least not in 2026. But you can't argue Flock the technology itself, and especially Flock the company, are totally innocent, just like you can't say the "guns are just tools like hammer, it only depends on who uses them", and the gun industry.
> the police has no fault
Gross lack of due diligence: it has full fault.
Untrained officials: graver systemic fault.
> company, are totally innocent
How clear is the uncertainty of the output?
> How clear is the uncertainty of the output?
It is not even clear from the article that there were anything wrong with the output. She has a car of that make. And it doesnt appear to be in dispute that she drove nearby.
It simply is the case that “being nearby” in itself is not enough evidence that you were involved in a crash. Especially when the colour doesn’t match and the vehicle is not damaged.
So next time start your first post with that, otherwise you lead us on this wild goose chase only to find that you mostly agree, it's a foundational part of discourse.