A new study seemingly upends a long-accepted truth about fingerprints: They are not, a Columbia University undergraduate and his colleagues argue, all unique.
“Humans have been looking at fingerprints since we existed, but nobody ever noticed this similarity until we had our AI analyze it.”
“Their argument that these shapes are somewhat correlated between fingers has been known from the early start of fingerprinting, when it was done manually, and it has been documented for years. I think they have oversold their paper, by lack of knowledge, in my view. I’m happy that they have rediscovered something known”
Just two quotes, one from the author of the study, the other from a forensics expert. I have to admit, taking these quotes together genuinely makes this kind of funny. Excited student thinks he’s discovered something new and world-changing. Expert goes “yeah, we’ve known about that for years, but I’m happy you’re excited.” It feels telling that the authors of the paper are noted as having no knowledge of forensics. I think such a tool would have more use if forensics experts had some input about what they actually need from an AI tool.
Just two quotes, one from the author of the study, the other from a forensics expert. I have to admit, taking these quotes together genuinely makes this kind of funny. Excited student thinks he’s discovered something new and world-changing. Expert goes “yeah, we’ve known about that for years, but I’m happy you’re excited.” It feels telling that the authors of the paper are noted as having no knowledge of forensics. I think such a tool would have more use if forensics experts had some input about what they actually need from an AI tool.
Not exactly:
I think one can get some knowledge of a certain niche aspect of forensics over the course of three years.