Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Not to mention the potential severe consequences of the inevitable false positives, given the target subject matter.


sort by: page size:

False positives are a problem if the response is itself potentially dangerous.

It would certainly run the risk of false positives.

And the can easily generate false positives! The worst of both worlds.

Given the potential liabilty consequences, this will invariably lead to a lot of false positive. There is a high chance that this ends up increasing costs.

The potential for false positives here seems astronomical...

False positives are far more problematic than false negatives...

Technology like this will sometimes work and many times not, and the false positives and true negatives will cause a lot of harm on the way.

False positives can be debilitating or fatal.

It'd be tricky to avoid false positives

plus in the current context, false negatives are much more dangerous than false positives

Your comment focuses on false negatives as if that is the only downfall, but I can't help to imagine false positives happen quite a bit.

Makes me think of the ramifications of false positives.

You're assuming that they consider the false positives to be disastrous (and that they consider them to be false positives in the first place). That's not necessarily a safe assumption.

The more false positives they have, the more false negatives they're going to have and that's where it becomes an issue.

you'd be up to your ears in false positives, which can often be worse. screening is hard.

Avoiding false positives is much more important than eliminating all the false negatives. Ugly, but true.

Well, a good side of it - the more false positives they have, the worse for them.

and also leads to many false positives that in turn leads to treatments with many side effects or even dangers

This would have a very high false positive rate.
next

Legal | privacy