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

IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 132 posts

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#101

Post by Aperocky »

MaxikCZ wrote: post #56
willcipriano wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM's solutions are so ancient they are no longer considered technology.

I dont know. My close relative works as infrastructure engineer at major automotive company, and about every 2 years they are buying new computation clusters (think tens to low hundreds thousands of cores, along with network and storage infra). Every time a public tender is held, and every time there are several companies promising to achieve required results with whatever hardware. Last decade I know of three differ…

But the world is moving away from mainframes and into commodity hardware, even without considering the "cloud" aspect.

It's a dying business to be in, even if IBM excel in it.

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#102

Post by hedora »

gumballindie wrote: post #16
JohnFen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to prepare for it. How?

Ok, I'll say it. I am actively moving away from any type of serveillance device and software, where possible of course. Moved away from the data scraping OS made by windows to linux. De google, de apple, and spread the word. There may not be much we can do against the sheer amount of public surveillance we enjoy, a level that makes the STASI and KGB pale in comparison, other than voting voting and voting. Protesting…

So… how do you engage in commerce, use transportation, and connect to the internet?

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#103

Post by hedora »

HtmlProgrammer wrote: post #9
seydor wrote: post #3

I think it s impossible to hold off the oncoming onslaught of Big State powered by AI , but i think we are doing a very bad job of telling the public to prepare for it, starting with AI powered online manipulation

The general public won’t care until it impacts them personally. Time to buy that country estate surrounded by trees so the surveillance state can’t see the finer details of your eyes with their AI cameras

The surveillance state adopted to lidar decades ago, specifically because it can see through trees.

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#104

Post by fweimer »

tw04 wrote: post #68
MaxikCZ wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont know. My close relative works as infrastructure engineer at major automotive company, and about every 2 years they are buying new computation clusters (think tens to low hundreds thousands of cores, along with network and storage infra). Every time a public tender is held, and every time there are several companies promising to achieve required results with whatever hardware. Last decade I know of three differ…

It seems EXTREMELY unlikely that Cray would be unable to meet performance requirements and promises. They've consistently done so for decades in all manner of government and private institutions.

HPE Cray are involved with Aurora: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(supercomputer)

As far as I understand it, the project saw substantial delays so far.

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#105

Post by wnc3141 »

willcipriano wrote: post #40
supermatt wrote: post #38

“IBM firmly opposes and will not condone uses of any technology, including facial recognition technology offered by other vendors…” They didn’t feel the need to “include” themselves in their definition of “any”

IBM's solutions are so ancient they are no longer considered technology.

What is IBM's competitive position? I always assumed they were in the assurance business. I.e. they have well tested systems with close support. Anyone with more insight?

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#106

Post by nonrandomstring »

quacked wrote: post #65
rqtwteye wrote: post #62

When will people learn that companies will almost always sell stuff as long as it’s legal and profitable. They have no morals. If we declined into a dictatorship they would sell equipment for total surveillance and oppression. If we don’t make it illegal to pollute they will pollute if they think it makes money.

I believe people should take care to add "men and women at" before talking about companies. Companies and corporations are abstractions. There are real people taking these actions. - "Men and women at IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it" - "Men and women would sell equipment for total surveillance and oppression" etc. The reason I think this is important is that there's act…

You are right. This was settled with the Nuremberg principles and code in the wake of the last world war. Group apologetics are cowardly and unacceptable. People of excellent character, some of them genuine leaders, step up and accept responsibility for the moral failures of organisations they head. Those "merely following orders" deserve no protection.

We must stop blaming "the system", or "inevitable progress", or "capitalism", or whatever abstraction. It is terribly weak and avoidant to do so. It seems perfectly fair to put names to actions having broad effect. I think the (as you say) _few_ people who make far reaching decisions in technology deserve treating as de-facto public figures, as worthy of public scrutiny as political representatives.

Want to "invent" some disruptive new technology that changes the world? At least have the decency to put your name to it, stand by it and defend it ethically. Otherwise what you're doing looks more like terrorism than science.

Actual individual _people_ make awful decisions, knowing that they are awful, and hoping to get away with it through "safety in numbers". We should welcome whatever puts moral pressure on such individuals to act properly, and not to hide behind their "gang". Corporations have become a rock beneath which rather little sunlight shines nowdays.

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#107

Post by pc86 »

tempodox wrote: post #53
supermatt wrote: post #38

“IBM firmly opposes and will not condone uses of any technology, including facial recognition technology offered by other vendors…” They didn’t feel the need to “include” themselves in their definition of “any”

If a pittance of $70M makes IBM go back on their word, they must really be on their last legs.

I'll do it for 10¢ on the dollar.

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#108

Post by rqtwteye »

quacked wrote: post #65
rqtwteye wrote: post #62

When will people learn that companies will almost always sell stuff as long as it’s legal and profitable. They have no morals. If we declined into a dictatorship they would sell equipment for total surveillance and oppression. If we don’t make it illegal to pollute they will pollute if they think it makes money.

I believe people should take care to add "men and women at" before talking about companies. Companies and corporations are abstractions. There are real people taking these actions. - "Men and women at IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it" - "Men and women would sell equipment for total surveillance and oppression" etc. The reason I think this is important is that there's act…

“there are spineless cowards out there getting up every morning to go and build facial recognition software.”

Almost any technology can be abused. There are a lot of good uses for facial recognition and also a lot of bad. I don’t think the people who develop technology are responsible of cowards for how it’s being used. That’s up to the big guys. If you want to work on stuff that’s for sure only used for “good” purposes, your world will be very small.

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#109

Post by OkayPhysicist »

rqtwteye wrote: post #108
quacked wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe people should take care to add "men and women at" before talking about companies. Companies and corporations are abstractions. There are real people taking these actions. - "Men and women at IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it" - "Men and women would sell equipment for total surveillance and oppression" etc. The reason I think this is important is that there's act…

“there are spineless cowards out there getting up every morning to go and build facial recognition software.” Almost any technology can be abused. There are a lot of good uses for facial recognition and also a lot of bad. I don’t think the people who develop technology are responsible of cowards for how it’s being used. That’s up to the big guys. If you want to work on stuff that’s for sure only used for “good” purpo…

This isn't a case of "we're making this for some noble purpose, but it might be abused". This is "we're making this so that we can use it for evil". Like the engineers at Palintir who were working on the whole predictive policing thing. There's no good that can come of that (I suppose the same could be true if you left out everything after "Palintir" in that sentence). The core motivation of developing the technology is evil.

Re: IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it

#110

Post by OkayPhysicist »

bo1024 wrote: post #100
quacked wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe people should take care to add "men and women at" before talking about companies. Companies and corporations are abstractions. There are real people taking these actions. - "Men and women at IBM promised to back off facial recognition, then signed a $70M contract for it" - "Men and women would sell equipment for total surveillance and oppression" etc. The reason I think this is important is that there's act…

Point taken, but an important point here is exactly that companies are abstractions, and they exhibit emergent behavior -- cases where the the company as a whole, responding to "its" incentives, "does" things that no individual at the company would necessarily do or even condone if it were all up to them.

At the end of the day, some engineer has to sit down and say "I'm going to make this evil thing because the boss is paying me to do it". That's a breach of ethics. That emergent behavior is enabled, at every step, by complacency.
Post reply on HN