Predictive Policing AI Geolitica Fails, Causes Harm and Bias in Plainfield

The event involves an AI system explicitly described as predictive policing software used by law enforcement. The system's use directly led to harm by disproportionately targeting minority communities, which constitutes a violation of rights and harm to communities. The software's failure to accurately predict crimes also resulted in ineffective policing, potentially exacerbating inequalities and undermining public safety. These outcomes meet the criteria for an AI Incident as the AI system's use has directly led to harm. The article also references prior investigations highlighting bias and misuse, reinforcing the classification as an incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event involves the use of an AI system (crime prediction software) whose deployment has directly led to harm: ineffective policing efforts wasting public funds and, more importantly, biased targeting of minority communities, which constitutes a violation of rights and harm to communities. The AI system's outputs have caused or contributed to these harms, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system (predictive policing software Geolitica) whose use has directly led to harms including ineffective policing, disproportionate targeting of minority communities, and potential wrongful arrests, which constitute violations of rights and harm to communities. The study's findings and expert commentary confirm that the AI system's malfunction and poor predictive performance have caused these harms. Hence, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the OECD framework, as the AI system's use has directly and indirectly led to significant harms.

The AI system (Geolitica) was explicitly used by the police for crime prediction. Its use led to significant harm: ineffective policing due to inaccurate predictions and disproportionate targeting of minority and low-income neighborhoods, which is a violation of rights and harm to communities. These harms are direct consequences of the AI system's outputs and use. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework, as the AI system's use directly led to harm to communities and violations of rights.

Geolitica is an AI system used for predictive policing, which is explicitly mentioned. The article details its use and the direct harms caused by its inaccurate predictions, including social discrimination and harmful policing practices that affect communities. These harms fall under violations of rights and harm to communities, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The article also references regulatory responses recognizing the risks of such AI systems. Therefore, this event is best classified as an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system (predictive policing software Geolitica) whose use has directly led to ineffective policing and biased targeting of minority communities, which are harms to communities and violations of rights. The study documents realized harms such as disproportionate patrols and wrongful arrests, and the police's own acknowledgment of the software's ineffectiveness and potential negative consequences. This meets the criteria for an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly and indirectly caused harm.