Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#61

Post by ddxxdd »

freeopinion wrote: post #58
freeone3000 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No! Because, for some reason that has no basis in reality, people think computers are less biased than humans! They trust computers OVER PEOPLE, even if the computer is racist, or just wrong. Humans are accountable, changeable, cross-examinable. Computer systems are not. Please do not give enforcement systems over to computer systems, and have the bias calcified forever.

I'm not arguing for or against computers vs humans, but your argument is puzzling to me. Computer systems are accountable, changeable, and cross-examinable. Arguably more so than humans. I do stipulate that computer systems can be racist or otherwise biased and can be "just wrong".

I fully agree; a neural network can be continuously trained. Software can continuously perform A/B testing and change its mind when its current procedure proves inefficient.

The human mind tends to be set in its ways.

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#62

Post by mtgx »

scarejunba wrote: post #10

SuperRecognizers plus facial recognition bans makes me think of Dune-style people as computers. Instead of a computer running the program we just have the guys in Room 901 do it.

So then they'll only assign them to the Really Important Cases - not millions of people at once.

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#63

Post by Spooky23 »

sambull wrote: post #7
ve55 wrote: post #2

The solution to this is not "regulate Amazon's facial recognition". It's just "regulate all facial recognition". While that's obviously challenging, targeting Amazon specifically doesn't actually improve the status quo in a lasting way.

Agreed, where do a I sign up. With the proliferation of license plate readers and other surveillance cameras in the last 5 years it's a matter of time before this creeps out to full algorithmic 'risk scores' for when you have encounters with enforcement. For some that may mean just getting shot [0], while they think someone risky might be in the vehicle, based on association. Or other harassment. [0] https://www.lati…

This already happens.

See: https://www.vigilantsolutions.com/products/license-plate-rec...

Basically, you punch in a plate and get alerts, nationwide. It's likely that facial recognition technology can associate some car passengers to a vehicle as well.

See: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/license-plate-scanners...

I don't know this, but I would guess that you'd attract attention if you started driving from South Florida and rolled through the wrong neighborhood in a place like Philly or DC on your way home to Boston.

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#64

Post by rapind »

k__ wrote: post #53

Maybe masks become a thing again? Venecian style.

Won't work. You'll be matched on gait, the way you carry yourself. This scares the shit out of me, but what scares me more is that it doesn't also scare the shit out of everyone else.

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#65

Post by acct1771 »

skykooler wrote: post #31

I'm surprised to see content from such a high-profile site as the BBC with typographical errors: "The Bloomberg news agency and CNBC are bother reporting that"

Wait until you start reading multiple sources for each and every story, and start to see the (lack of) consistency of larger media fact-checking.

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#66

Post by pathseeker »

acct1771 wrote: post #43
lotu wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really sounds preferable to me, even if the initial versions of these algorithms are biased. They will provide a concrete thing against which to test for bias and improve against. It is easily verifiable if your changes to an algorithm have removed the bias you are worried about. Conversely it is basically impossible to tell if your training on a human has changed their biases in the field, sort of just having the…

> It is easily verifiable if your changes to an algorithm have removed the bias you are worried about. Please never enter politics.

Yeah, god forbid we have audit capabilities in law enforcement.

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#67

Post by crowtoe76 »

3327 wrote: post #45
ve55 wrote: post #2

The solution to this is not "regulate Amazon's facial recognition". It's just "regulate all facial recognition". While that's obviously challenging, targeting Amazon specifically doesn't actually improve the status quo in a lasting way.

We are moving towards minority report. These powerful tools are great, but in the hands of a Tyrant when that day comes (not if), it will come, it will be very difficult to unwind the grip of power with technology so advanced. The rebels will still find a way, but it will take years and many lives.

The day is upon us. I'm sure there are many HN readers here now who are actively working to build the open prison system that is America, because of money, power, NDAs, National Security, lies. Basically the only place I find "dissent" is in internet forums, which amounts to some high-falutin hot air being flung around, the same thing we've been doing for years. Most anyone who cares is too scared to do anything, because the government readily destroys any problematic individual or group. As an individual, you are powerless. If you group, they will know.

That it's now fashionable to install always-on microphones in people's homes, that we carry always-on cell phones broadcasting our information wherever we go, that the streets and skies are covered in cameras and sensors watching our every movement, yet we mill about with casual disregard for the implications, gives me little hope that, as citizens, we could ever collectively wake up or rise up. We are taught fear and hate and division. If we should ever forget, they'll remind us by writing messages with our blood. We point fingers at a bumbling scapegoat sitting in a temporary seat, while the real power lies off-camera.

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#68

Post by est31 »

mushufasa wrote: post #50
oldjokes wrote: post #11

Is this really a valid test anymore with 50%+ of outstanding shares being held by index funds? Who actually controls the companies when shareholders don't really exist like they used to? What does shareholder primacy even mean anymore?

Shareholder primacy is in an interesting place. With the rise of index funds also comes the rise of the idea of a 'universal owner' solving the tragedy of the commons.[0] If you own a piece of every company, like Vanguard or BlackRock, your funds benefit when the whole economy does well. Your incentive is to advance society, not to promote any one company at the expense of the others. In that way, you internalize ext…

> If you own a piece of every company, like Vanguard or BlackRock, your funds benefit when the whole economy does well.

Index funds only target top companies. Externalities tend to b eenefit those top companies while harming little companies as well as poor people, often not even in the same country.

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#69

Post by freeone3000 »

ddxxdd wrote: post #61
freeopinion wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing for or against computers vs humans, but your argument is puzzling to me. Computer systems are accountable, changeable, and cross-examinable. Arguably more so than humans. I do stipulate that computer systems can be racist or otherwise biased and can be "just wrong".

I fully agree; a neural network can be continuously trained. Software can continuously perform A/B testing and change its mind when its current procedure proves inefficient. The human mind tends to be set in its ways.

But it doesn't. Current systems do not do this, but people trust in them because machine learning is "more accurate", somehow. It's a huge problem managing expectations around a black box. Online training does not happen in any form at scale. These "fair" systems are, by and large, nonsense.

Re: Amazon defeated Rekognition shareholder revolt by a large margin

#70

Post by gliboc »

eecc wrote: post #59
tastygreenapple wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds preferable to calculate risk scores deterministically rather than rely on Law Enforcement's discretion. Risk scores are computed for every traffic stop, wouldn't you want to take that process away from the office and give it to a computer?

You are aware that AI programs reflect the prejudices of the organizations that develop them? https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6334/183.full

Yes, and it is well known that Tesla's self-driving program reproduces Elon Musk's reckless driving habits... /s

I'm just intervening to point out that what you're saying is not what the paper you linked implies. Its title is "Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases", and the general conclusion you could derive from it is that AI programs reflect the stereotypes ... of the data they are trained with. This is why they use the right word: stereotype, instead of the charged word you used: prejudice.

Post reply on HN