And then
> Overall, the optimized model achieved 84% accuracy, with zero false negatives [...] and 57 false positives.
So in the what-if scenario above, 16% of cases would falsely escalate a situation dramatically? Seems like a horrible idea. And "really good" seems like a stretch.
This headline shouldn't be tolerated here.
>For the experiments, we selected 30 scenes from the previously used videos with the next requirements. Each scene is made up of at least 5 frames, filmed in a fixed scenario, i.e., in the same place, and the pistols are clearly visible to a human viewer. ... The model successfully detects the pistol in 27 scenes with an average time interval AATpI=0.2 seconds, which is good enough for an alarm system. The detector fails to detect pistols only in three scenes.
I am probably particularly picky but (from the paper):
>This section analyzes the performance of our best detection model on seven public videos, with low qualities, downloaded from youtube. Six of them are pieces of well known films from the 90s, James Bon: The World is Not Enough (video 1), 3 pieces from Pulp Fiction (video 2, 3 and 4), Impossible Mission: Rogue Nation (video 5) and Mister Bin (video 6). The seventh video is a long pistol threatening video (video 7).
... if you cannot spell Bond or Mister Bean, and you classify Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation as a 90's movie (calling it Impossible Mission) you don't look like having been particularly accurate when writing the article, if the same accurateness is in the actual numbers, there is a problem.
Anyway the "final" sample (30 scenes) is so small that it makes very little sense to derive anything from it.
Unless you just basically want a drug-sniffing dog, for guns. That is, something to "scienceify" something that would otherwise be problematic (searching this car, or shooting that suspect).
"Hey judge, the DOG said it, it must be true!"
"Hey judge, the COMPUTER said it, it must be true!"
If officer's don't have to potentially gun someone down because they made a hectic movement 84% of the time, that's a pretty big win.
Imagine 84% of " black guy mysteriously died" actually led to convictions of officers because their ai thing told them "definitely no gun, bro"
I imagine that, like body cameras, the AI thing will, in those events, conveniently be deactivated, malfunctioning, misplaced, or have it's records lost.
How many? Because apparently we haven't yet reached it with body cams.
Like I know?
But if you compound different systems, like the ai handgun thing and dont store the data in the same place, it becomes exponentially less likely that suddenly 2 critical systems failed at the same important moment for some reason.
the real issue with police brutality is the fact that it is, in fact, legal, and police is trained to respond in such a way. what protesters get wrong about police brutality is that its supposedly illegal. it is not. most instances of police killing someone are actually legal. which doesn't make it right. but its legal. saying somethings illegal when its not just makes you look like an idiot.
people need to protest for better laws, not getting individual cops sentenced, because that wont ever happen with any kind of regularity.
This is preliminary work but it wouldn't be useful to have an alarm go off every time another police officer or security guard comes into view with a gun on his hip.
That said, I don't think police would want it if it might increase the risk to their lives.
MTBF: Even small guns produce recoil, which over time will damage or degrade any electronics built into the firing mechanism.
Security: if a "computer" of whatever complexity is controlling the firing of the gun it presents surface area both for attacks and bugs.
Rank and file acceptance: No officer will want to go into the field with a service weapon fitted with "safety restrictions" or "casualty reduction mechanisms" other than the trigger safety.
The training guns could be separate. Surely the "on-duty" guns are not being fired often enough that this will be an issue at all... right? Right??