The US and China want different things, right?
We recorded 2 claims from this post. 2 can’t be checked. 3 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (2)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“The fact that the US is apparently using these tools, or the fact that they aren’t likely to be reliable, almost certainly regularly reporting false alarms, and likely full of insidious bias, like so many previous AI systems have shown themselves to be?”
Our reading: The AI surveillance tools the US government is apparently using are likely not reliable.
No horizon
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
Observation
“The fact that the US is apparently using these tools, or the fact that they aren’t likely to be reliable, almost certainly regularly reporting false alarms, and likely full of insidious bias, like so many previous AI systems have shown themselves to be?”
Our reading: The AI tools the US is apparently using to surveil its citizens are likely full of insidious bias, as so many previous AI systems have shown themselves to be.
No horizon
Qualifier: likely
Held from this post (3)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The two reviews read the claim differently
- The record does not meet the current rules. Our reading, not assessed: The AI tools the US is apparently using to surveil its citizens are almost certainly regularly reporting false alarms.