As are eye witness accounts, which have been demonstrated to be pretty useless.
As are fingerprints, a tiny sliver of (maybe?[0]) uniquely identifiable information.
As are autopsies, where the state of the corpse is maintained only in whatever the examiner writes down, x-rays, or snaps a polaroid of.
As are bite marks...
So you've got all that, plus your lawyer's sweaty appeals to emotion in a group of 12 people - of whom four will express a belief in haunted houses and two will claim to have actually seen a ghost [1]. You'd prefer that over an application of math that can be challenged and rationally discussed?
> Furthermore, neural networks are trivially fooled...
A neural network was fooled with the equivalent of a hash collision, one guess as to how to fix that :)
> I'd actually trust a trained neural network far less than a human...
I can't think of a single person I'd trust over math, once maybe Bill Cosby - but not anymore.
> Speed and automation are their advantages compared to trained humans, not quality.
Well in this context I'd say that impartiality and repeatability are pretty important, which are characteristics more likely to describe a math model than an individual with the qualifications of a mailing address - and all the training that can be packing into a 20 minute vhs about civic duty played on a wheeled TV.
As are eye witness accounts, which have been demonstrated to be pretty useless.
As are fingerprints, a tiny sliver of (maybe?[0]) uniquely identifiable information.
As are autopsies, where the state of the corpse is maintained only in whatever the examiner writes down, x-rays, or snaps a polaroid of.
As are bite marks...
So you've got all that, plus your lawyer's sweaty appeals to emotion in a group of 12 people - of whom four will express a belief in haunted houses and two will claim to have actually seen a ghost [1]. You'd prefer that over an application of math that can be challenged and rationally discussed?
> Furthermore, neural networks are trivially fooled...
A neural network was fooled with the equivalent of a hash collision, one guess as to how to fix that :)
> I'd actually trust a trained neural network far less than a human...
I can't think of a single person I'd trust over math, once maybe Bill Cosby - but not anymore.
> Speed and automation are their advantages compared to trained humans, not quality.
Well in this context I'd say that impartiality and repeatability are pretty important, which are characteristics more likely to describe a math model than an individual with the qualifications of a mailing address - and all the training that can be packing into a 20 minute vhs about civic duty played on a wheeled TV.
[0] http://www.academia.edu/447251/The_Current_Position_of_Finge...
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/30/18-of-americ...