<story><title>A man spent a year in jail on murder charge that hinged on disputed AI evidence</title><url>https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/22/in_brief_ai/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>PragmaticPulp</author><text>The article says that employees of the AI company (ShotSpotter) manually reviewed and classified the sounds as gunshots:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; records showed that ShotSpotter actually initially picked up what sounded like a firework a mile away, and this was later reclassified by ShotSpotter staff to be a gunshot at the intersection where and when Williams was seen on camera.&lt;p&gt;So the AI didn’t even make the call. The staff did, manually. I assume that means the actual audio is available and entered into evidence?&lt;p&gt;If humans are making the call then blaming AI seems like a stretch. That’s almost like blaming the motion detection algorithms for triggering video recordings that were later reviewed by humans. It’s still humans reviewing the recordings and making decisions.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>stefan_</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s the point? These systems invariably turn out to not be any sort of AI at all, but sales people ready to make a call any way their customer (police) wants it made.&lt;p&gt;Later it&amp;#x27;s presented as AI to a jury. It&amp;#x27;s basically the same scam as lots of forensics, junk science to get a desired result.</text></comment>
<story><title>A man spent a year in jail on murder charge that hinged on disputed AI evidence</title><url>https://www.theregister.com/2021/08/22/in_brief_ai/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>PragmaticPulp</author><text>The article says that employees of the AI company (ShotSpotter) manually reviewed and classified the sounds as gunshots:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; records showed that ShotSpotter actually initially picked up what sounded like a firework a mile away, and this was later reclassified by ShotSpotter staff to be a gunshot at the intersection where and when Williams was seen on camera.&lt;p&gt;So the AI didn’t even make the call. The staff did, manually. I assume that means the actual audio is available and entered into evidence?&lt;p&gt;If humans are making the call then blaming AI seems like a stretch. That’s almost like blaming the motion detection algorithms for triggering video recordings that were later reviewed by humans. It’s still humans reviewing the recordings and making decisions.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nerdponx</author><text>&amp;gt; Crucially, Williams&amp;#x27; lawyers – public defenders Lisa Boughton and Brendan Max – said records showed that ShotSpotter actually initially picked up what sounded like a firework a mile away, and this was later reclassified by ShotSpotter staff to be a gunshot at the intersection where and when Williams was seen on camera. ShotSpotter strongly insisted it had not improperly altered any data to favor the police&amp;#x27;s case, and said that regardless of the initial real-time alert, its evidence of the gunshot was the result of follow-up forensic analysis, which was submitted to the courts.&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;Strongly insisted&amp;quot; links to: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theregister.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;08&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;nvidia_cuda_openai&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.theregister.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;08&amp;#x2F;02&amp;#x2F;nvidia_cuda_openai&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; One of the pieces of evidence against Williams claims ShotSpotter&amp;#x27;s sensors in Chicago identified gunfire where surveillance cameras had seen Williams stop his car by a south-side Chicago block, right when and where the cops said Herring was shot.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; However, Williams’ lawyer submitted paperwork [PDF] claiming ShotSpotter actually detected a firework a mile away from that location, and that ShotSpotter later reclassified the bang as a gunshot and the location as being where Williams was seen on camera, Vice first reported.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Williams&amp;#x27; lawyer demanded the court hold an inquiry into the ShotSpotter evidence, and the prosecutors simply withdrew it.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; ShotSpotter responded by denying at length it improperly altered any data or evidence, and hit back at any suggestion it had done so to help the police make a case. It said its software generates real-time alerts automatically, and staff later analyze the microphone readings to submit forensic reports for the courts, and these final reports can therefore differ from the initial alerts.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &amp;quot;The idea that ShotSpotter &amp;#x27;alters&amp;#x27; or &amp;#x27;fabricates&amp;#x27; evidence in any way is an outrageous lie and would be a criminal offense,&amp;quot; it said in a statement. &amp;quot;We follow the facts and data for our forensic analysis. Period.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Update: The case against Williams was dismissed by the judge at the request of the prosecution, which admitted it now had insufficient evidence. Williams had spent the best part of a year in jail awaiting trial.</text></comment>