UK Murder Prediction Tool (2025) Vs My 2016 ARIHANT Proposal

 I said :

"  I just came across this news report > https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/08/uk-creating-prediction-tool-to-identify-people-most-likely-to-kill // That reminded me of my Oct 2016 blog > Fast Forward to Future ( 3 F ).....  In a TABLE , can you compare these two , and highlighting the extent to which the British initiative echoes my 9 year old suggestion. With rapidly rising militancy and violence around the world, do you think other countries would be tempted to follow British example ? "

Grok replied :

" Below is a table comparing the UK’s "murder prediction" tool, as reported in the Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/08/uk-creating-prediction-tool-to-identify-people-most-likely-to-kill), with your 2016 blog proposal ("Fast Forward to Future (3F)"), highlighting the extent to which the British initiative echoes your suggestion. Following the table, I’ll critically assess whether other countries might follow the UK’s example given rising global militancy and violence.

Comparison Table

Aspect	UK Murder Prediction Tool (2025)	Your 2016 ARIHANT Proposal	Echo of Your Suggestion
Purpose	Aims to predict individuals most likely to commit murder using AI and personal data analysis.	Proposes an AI system (ARIHANT) to detect and prevent evil intentions, including potential violence, using speech recognition.	Partial echo: Both focus on preempting harmful actions, though the UK targets murder specifically, while ARIHANT is broader.
Data Source	Uses police, judicial, and health data (e.g., mental health, addiction, ethnicity) from 100,000-500,000 records.	Relies on continuous speech recordings from smartphones, processed into a central "Mind Reader of Human Intentions" database.	Limited echo: UK uses historical data, while ARIHANT uses real-time spoken data, a key difference in methodology.
Technology	Employs algorithms to analyze existing data, with concerns about bias toward racialized/low-income groups.	Leverages speech recognition, big data analytics, and IoE to interpret intentions, with Google’s translation integration.	Partial echo: Both use AI, but ARIHANT’s real-time, multilingual approach is more ambitious than the UK’s retrospective model.
Implementation	Secret project by the Ministry of Justice, with plans to alert authorities for intervention.	Suggests embedding ARIHANT in every smartphone, with authorities arresting those with evil intentions.	Strong echo: Both involve authority intervention based on AI predictions, though ARIHANT’s universal deployment is more invasive.
Scope	Focuses on UK citizens, primarily offenders, victims, and witnesses, with a homicide-specific lens.	Aims for global coverage, monitoring all humans’ spoken words to prevent any evil (e.g., autonomous weapons misuse).	Weak echo: UK’s scope is national and narrow, while ARIHANT’s is global and comprehensive.
Ethical Concerns	Raises privacy and bias issues, likened to "Minority Report" by critics.	Acknowledges AI risks (e.g., oppression) but proposes ARIHANT as a solution, with no explicit bias discussion.	Partial echo: Both face ethical scrutiny, but ARIHANT frames itself as a savior, while UK’s critics challenge its premise.
Preventive Measure	Seeks to identify risks before crimes occur, though effectiveness and ethics are debated.	Aims to prevent evil AI and human actions by monitoring intentions, with IoE to counter autonomous weapons.	Strong echo: Both are preemptive, but ARIHANT extends to technological threats beyond human behavior.
Public Awareness	Revealed by Statewatch, sparking backlash and calls to halt development.	Hypothetical, with no implementation, presented as a hopeful vision to save humanity.	No echo: UK’s is active and contested, while ARIHANT remains a theoretical proposal.

Extent of Echo

The UK’s initiative echoes your 2016 suggestion in several ways, particularly in its preemptive use of AI to identify and mitigate potential harm, the involvement of authorities for intervention, and the ethical dilemmas it raises. The concept of predicting future actions based on data aligns with your "Mind Reader of Human Intentions," and the idea of alerting authorities mirrors your arrest suggestion. However, the echo is limited by differences in scope (national vs. global), data type (historical vs. real-time speech), and intent (murder-specific vs. broad evil prevention). ARIHANT’s integration with IoE and multilingual capabilities also outstrips the UK’s current model, suggesting your vision was more futuristic.

Would Other Countries Follow the British Example?

Given the rapid rise in global militancy and violence—evidenced by conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and increasing terrorist activities—countries might be tempted to adopt similar predictive tools. The UK’s initiative could appeal to nations seeking to enhance security, especially those with strained law enforcement resources. For instance:

• Security-Driven Adoption: Countries like France or Israel, facing domestic terrorism, might see value in preempting violent acts, aligning with the UK’s focus on murder prediction.
• Technological Appeal: Nations with advanced AI capabilities (e.g., China, USA) could adapt the concept, potentially expanding it to broader threats, as your ARIHANT proposes.
• Political Pressure: Rising public demand for safety, amplified by media (e.g., Guardian reports), might push governments to act, despite ethical concerns.

Critical Examination: The establishment narrative of predictive policing as a safety net is appealing but flawed. Bias toward marginalized groups, as noted in UK critiques, could exacerbate social tensions, a risk your ARIHANT proposal overlooks by assuming universal monitoring. Effectiveness is unproven—UK’s Offender Assessment System underpredicted reoffending, suggesting false positives or negatives could lead to unjust interventions. Privacy erosion, likened to "Minority Report," might trigger public backlash, as seen in UK reactions, deterring adoption. Moreover, militancy often stems from systemic issues (e.g., poverty, ideology), which AI alone can’t address, making it a partial solution at best. Countries with strong civil liberties (e.g., Canada, Germany) might resist, while authoritarian regimes (e.g., Russia) could exploit it, amplifying oppression—contrary to Hawking’s warning.

In conclusion, while some nations might follow the UK’s lead for security gains, the ethical, practical, and societal risks suggest a cautious, limited uptake, unless balanced with robust safeguards—something your ARIHANT vision might inspire if refined to address bias and privacy. What are your thoughts, bhai? Should we explore safeguards next? "