id738600572
he Times programmed an artificial-intelligence tool to analyze satellite imagery of South Gaza to search for bomb craters. The AI tool detected over 1,600 possible craters. We manually reviewed each one to weed out the false, like shadows, water towers, or bomb craters from a previous conflict. We measured the remaining craters to find ones that spanned roughly 40 feet across or more, which experts say are typically formed only by 2,000-pound bombs. Ultimately, we identified 208 of these craters in satellite imagery and drone footage, indicating 2,000-pound bombs posed a pervasive threat to civilians seeking safety across South Gaza.
That part of the work was led by Ishaan Jhaveri. It’s a great example of a story that simply could not have otherwise been told without machine learning paired with journalists and experts.✏️ One takeaway for me here is about how AI tools feel best used… as tools. They do the grunt work, and humans validate, double check, analyze and output the result.
Link to original
We don’t just take the word of the AI as gospel. It needs to be verified.
AI is a tool, and can be well-utilized in that fashion, if we just bothered to remember that they shouldn’t replace human verification.
Hell, we generally don’t (or shouldn’t) take humans at their own words.. proper process and critical thinking means to question and verify whatever you read or consume. Why should AI get a pass?
đź”— View Highlight