AI incident #831 ·

NYC Subway AI Weapons Scanners Yield High False Positive Rate and Detect No Guns in Month-Long Pilot Test

Open on the AI Incident Database 2 news reports Synced from the AIID API · record last edited 4 Sep 2026

What happened

NYC implemented an AI enabled weapons scanner for a month-long pilot with limited success. Despite not finding any weapons during the September 2024 testing phase, there were 118 false positives in which a person was searched under suspicion of carrying a weapon with no actual gun detections.

Editor's notes (AI Incident Database)

The 118 false positives can be considered a privacy invasion, and according to some cited legal advocacy groups, a violation of due process. Reconstructing the timeline of events: (1) March 28, 2024: Mayor Eric Adams announces plans to deploy Evolv's AI-powered weapons scanners in selected NYC subway stations. (2) Summer 2024: Pilot program begins, deploying AI scanners across 20 subway stations. (3) September 2024: NYPD completes a 30-day testing period with the scanners, performing 2,749 scans and recording 118 false positives and no firearms detections. (4) October 23, 2024: NYPD releases a brief statement summarizing the pilot results, which is marked at the incident date for our purposes, even though each false positive (as well as the potential for firearms to have slipped past detection) may be considered discrete incidents in and of themselves.

Only the incident metadata is stored here. The underlying news reports are on the AI Incident Database (CC BY-SA 4.0); use the links above to read them.

News reports (2)

Coverage catalogued by the AI Incident Database. Titles link to the original publisher; the text is not reproduced here.

Who was involved

Alleged developer
Evolv Technology
On AIID: Evolv Technology
Alleged harmed party
New York City subway riders
On AIID: New York City subway riders

AI systems implicated

AI-enabled decision support systems

Classification (MIT AI Risk Repository taxonomy)

Causal entity
AI
Intent
Unintentional
Timing
Post-deployment
Harm level
Sectors
Countries

Risk entries describing this failure mode

Entries from the MIT AI Risk Repository coded to subdomain 7.3.

  • Reliability issues

    "Relying on general-purpose AI products that fail to fulfil their intended function can lead to harm. For example, general- purpose AI systems can make up facts (‘hallucination’), generate erroneous computer code, or pro...

    International AI Safety Report 2025 (Bengio2025)

  • Type 2: Bigger than expected

    Harm can result from AI that was not expected to have a large impact at all, such as a lab leak, a surprisingly addictive open-source product, or an unexpected repurposing of a research prototype.

    TASRA: a Taxonomy and Analysis of Societal-Scale Risks from AI (Critch2023)

  • Type 3: Worse than expected

    AI intended to have a large societal impact can turn out harmful by mistake, such as a popular product that creates problems and partially solves them only for its users.

    TASRA: a Taxonomy and Analysis of Societal-Scale Risks from AI (Critch2023)

  • Ethics and Morality Issues

    LMs need to pay more attention to universally accepted societal values at the level of ethics and morality, including the judgement of right and wrong, and its relationship with social norms and laws.

    Towards Safer Generative Language Models: A Survey on Safety Risks, Evaluations, and Improvements (Deng2023)

  • Safe learning

    "AGIs should avoid making fatal mistakes during the learning phase. Subproblems include safe exploration and distributional shift (DeepMind, OpenAI), and continual learning (Berkeley)."

    AGI Safety Literature Review (Everitt2018 )

  • Malign belief distributions

    "Christiano (2016) argues that the universal distribution M (Hutter, 2005; Solomonoff, 1964a,b, 1978) is malign. The argument is somewhat intricate, and is based on the idea that a hypothesis about the world often includ...

    AGI Safety Literature Review (Everitt2018 )

  • Meta-cognition

    "Agents that reason about their own computational resources and logically uncertain events can encounter strange paradoxes due to Godelian limitations (Fallenstein and Soares, 2015; Soares and Fallenstein, 2014, 2017) an...

    AGI Safety Literature Review (Everitt2018 )

  • Misaligned consequentialist reasoning

    "As we think about even more intelligent and advanced AI assistants, perhaps outperforming humans on many cognitive tasks, the question of how humans can successfully control such an assistant looms large. To achieve the...

    The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants (Gabriel2024)

Linked by AIID editors or by its text-similarity model.

Incidents in the same risk subdomain

All incidents in this subdomain