Oh yeah? How many votes did fake Jeff Bezos have along with his fake-ass divorced wife who specifically left him voting rights.
This shits called a long con, folks.
Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
151–160 of 295 posts
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I googled it. pros·o·pag·no·sia /ˌpräsəpaɡˈnōZH(ē)ə/ noun PSYCHIATRY a neurological condition characterized by the inability to recognize the faces of familiar people.
"The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by neurologist Oliver Sacks is a fascinating story about visual agnosia - it was also my first introduction to artificial intelligence.
That's interesting, my Intro to AI professor also had us read this in college (UCI). Is this common introductory material for the field?
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places like train stations or airports. Looking for missing children. Having home automation react differently to different family members. Those are all usages I am personally totally ok with.
While I agree with the aspiration, I don’t see how it’s possible to use facial recognition to flag “america’s Most wanted” or to look for missing children without mass surveillance though? It only works if it scans _everyone_ . Additionally what happens when the technology isn’t perfect and innocent people get mistakenly flagged as persons of interest? The other thing is once it’s installed and in operation, what’s t…
And that’s the argument the grand-parent is making. It’s a tool. It can be used for good or bad. There are other tools like that.
Because of that, there’s unlikely to be universal acceptance or rejection. And without popular opinion, it will be hard to pass any laws that change the status quo.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#154In my mind selling facial recognition seems no different than selling a hammer. It’s amoral, it can be used for good or bad. Id much rather see laws to limit when and how the technology can be applied.
No. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
http://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
The issue is not whether it is amoral or not to do something. The issue is in the inherent asymmetry in making an error.
If i knowingly sell a hammer to a particularly wicked individual, perhaps a dozen or so innocent people will perish due to my actions.
However, if i sell facial recognition to the wrong individual, I may have wiped out an entire generation, gene pool, race, etc.
The probabilities of either event are irrelevant. What matters is the consequences of the fat tails.
Wicked use of a hammer != wicked use of mass surveillance.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places like train stations or airports. Looking for missing children. Having home automation react differently to different family members. Those are all usages I am personally totally ok with.
>Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places And what happens if we descend into military rule or a dictatorship? With "America's most wanted" fliers, the general public can just refuse to participate. With facial recognition, anyone deemed an "enemy of the state" can easily be tracked and eliminated. Always assume the worst and work your way back to the good when doing the cost-benefit analysis.
Will the dictator obey the rule about facial recognition?
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#156In my mind selling facial recognition seems no different than selling a hammer. It’s amoral, it can be used for good or bad. Id much rather see laws to limit when and how the technology can be applied.
No. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE http://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf The issue is not whether it is amoral or not to do something. The issue is in the inherent asymmetry in making an error. If i knowingly sell a hammer to a particularly wicked individual, perhaps a dozen or so innocent people will perish due to my actions. However, if i sell facial recognition to the wrong individual, I may have wiped out an entire gene…
What about the possibility that a bad person uses the hammer to build a sarin gas bomb, uses it to destabilize the government, seizes control, and then executes entire races and gene pools? It's all about the consequences, not the probability, so doesn't that make selling a hammer just as wicked?
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places And what happens if we descend into military rule or a dictatorship? With "America's most wanted" fliers, the general public can just refuse to participate. With facial recognition, anyone deemed an "enemy of the state" can easily be tracked and eliminated. Always assume the worst and work your way back to the good when doing the cost-benefit analysis.
Laws have a tendency not to stop dictators. They are the law. In reality laws are only as powerful as their enforcement, and if there is no will to enforce, like what happens during transitions to dictatorships, then they’ll just be ignored.
Yes, but that is kind of the point. The lack of checks and balances tend to lead to totalitarianism.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#158I feel like there are clearly ways in which facial recognition can improve a lot of systems -- ticketing (think airports, sporting events, concerts etc); automated stores (like the amazon cashierless stores); payment (imagine not needing a wallet because the combination of your face, gait, and voice is enough to verify you); security (home/building/car entry, detecting suspicious individuals, known terrorists, past offenders, restraining orders)
There are also the many valid awful ways it which it can be used, particularly by the government. Why not just ask for laws preventing the bad uses? I don't get why it has to be all or nothing. If it's strictly government use that is concerning, or police use, then pass laws banning government collection of facial recognition models. There's no need to pass laws banning all forms of racial recognition simply because there are certain dangerous use cases.
It'd be like if back in the 20's or 30's someone said we need to ban cars because they could someday be driven by terrorists into large groups of people. It's a tragically valid concern, but we all agree it's not reason enough to ban cars altogether. An even more realistic example is folks back in the day complaining about how dangerous cars were, and rather than banning all cars deciding on speed limits and safety belts and airbags and anti-lock brakes and so on. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places like train stations or airports. Looking for missing children. Having home automation react differently to different family members. Those are all usages I am personally totally ok with.
>Flagging “America’s most wanted” in public places And what happens if we descend into military rule or a dictatorship? With "America's most wanted" fliers, the general public can just refuse to participate. With facial recognition, anyone deemed an "enemy of the state" can easily be tracked and eliminated. Always assume the worst and work your way back to the good when doing the cost-benefit analysis.
> the general public can just refuse to participate
The general public will be misled by the media. Already politicians are claiming that the media isn't truly independent or objective with claims of "fake news". If the media falsely claim that you are a dangerous criminal, the public will eat it up and ask for dessert.
Re: Amazon shareholders reject facial recognition ban
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
A land mine can only be a landmine. A hammer can build and destroy. So it makes sense to ban mines completely, as there is no humane use case. But for facial recognition, I do see valid use cases. So yes, I do agree with OP and rather have the bad use cases banned/regulated. And your metric: "If everyone used this technology would we live in a desirable world?" Totally depends on how it is used. I do see a potential…
A landline could prevent a burglar from walking on my property.
Or it could also kill a pizza delivery boy