Though the city’s facial recognition policy warns officers that the results of the technology are “nonscientific” and “should not be used as the sole basis for any decision,” Shute proceeded to build a case against one of the AI-generated results: Christopher Gatlin, a 29-year-old father of four who had no apparent ties to the crime scene nor a history of violent offenses, as Shute would later acknowledge.
The wrong use of the tool is the problem? blurry video just as good or better than eye witness.
On the other hand, what does “build the case” mean? It looks like Shute did his job, investigated and said “nothing here.”
If this had been eye witness instead of facial recognition, would we view it differently?
Good point. How often do eyewitness accounts differ?
If Shute was doing his job and said, nothing here, how did Gatlin end up in jail on the basis of blurry photos and AI?
Investigation should precede jailing.