347
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2025
347 points (98.6% liked)
News
35735 readers
1138 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel like this article is discrediting AI to shift blame away from the failure of law enforcement and governing bodies, and place it on AI. It literally says in the article it didn't work because the shooter didn't take out his weapon or use it in view of cameras, but when the cops came and drew their weapons it immediately worked. So it sounds like the AI works fine and we want to blame something other than bad policies for school shootings...
The AI doesn't work fine if it can only tell you there's a shooting while a shooting is taking place. It's a waste of resources and on its face is stupid and useless. It might be working as intended, it might be working to its capabilities. But that doesn't mean it should be there in the first place.
I don't blame the AI for not doing better here. I blame it for being snake oil and I blame those in charge for buying it and I blame society for constantly creating this fucking scenario of doing anything but what is needed.
The basic concept isn't a bad idea, assuming it works and you already have the cameras. If it ran locally at a negligible cost, I'd say it would be a potentially useful tool. But even then, it wouldn't solve the problems, just help identify them more quickly, especially in situations where a gun is in the school but isn't being fired yet. Less useful for an active shooter, more useful for spotting someone flashing a gun, brandishing, showing off to their friends, or even selling.
It would be like a smoke detector, good to have but only as part of a larger plan, and also not something you should be dumping a ton of money into.
I don't think the smoke detector comparison is entirely valid as smoke and fire don't make audible noise in the range of 150dB. Funnily enough smoke detectors only emit 85dB which is 65 times quieter than a gun shot (decibels are logarithmic).
Which is why I said that this would be less useful for active shooters and more useful for other scenarios.
Like finger guns on the playground or a food fight in the cafeteria?
Or like that list of scenarios I mentioned in the post you replied to.
These things don't happen very often, but then, neither do fires.
Let me put it like this: If someone was looking at the security cameras and saw a person waving a gun around, do you think that they should say something, or should they just ignore it? If the answer is that they should say something, then there is at least some value in detecting the presence of a gun. After that, it's just a matter of how effective and reliable the system would be, and what it costs to implement. But I'm not arguing that there are any worthwhile systems in existence, only that such a system could have value.
Admittedly not having read the article but I think the idea for the AI is not really to stop or alert anyone to an active school shooting. Maybe it could give a little heads up depending on how the shooter starts.
I think the bigger idea is for it to pick up firearms a kid might flash or have brought in to show off or otherwise brandish but not use at the time. That way you can intervene before a gun gets used but that's just my theory.
Agree on society though, it's very obvious the proliferation of firearms and ease of procuring one is a huge contributor to school shootings and gun violence in general. God forbid we try to rein that in. Let's just treat guns like cars. I have to get a license to drive a car because of how easy it is to kill myself or others with an automobile. When I turn 18 I can go buy an AR-15 with a simple run through a fed background check - maybe not even that, depending on the state and where you buy it - and waltz out the same day with a tool specifically made to kill people. No training, no oversight, no lessons just here's a tool to kill other humans and have fun!
How does that make any sense?