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

AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 201 posts

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#91

Post by pjmorris »

nine_k wrote: post #87

Science and technology are fundamentally about overcoming limitations and enabling previously impossible things. The process is ethically neutral, or oblivious if you will. Once you discover nitration, it will be used to produce both hunger-reducing fertilizers and devastating explosives. One cannot be discovered without the other, because they often involve the same chemical compounds. If you used said limitations t…

> The process is ethically neutral, or oblivious if you will.

I like 'oblivious' here, as it seems to me a matter of chance about who will achieve a breakthrough. It does seem to me that once a breakthrough is achieved by someone it will be used to enhance their power over others (counterexamples welcome!) To my mind, this power calls into doubt its ethical neutrality. Yes, it is the people in possession who are making the ethical choices... but they are ethical choices enabled by the technology.

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#92

Post by ethanbond »

robertlagrant wrote: post #66
ethanbond wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the reverse “lie that contains some truth” in your argument. Obviously this stuff will be used for all of these purposes as soon as it’s able, and probably a little bit before then.

As soon as AI is able to tell a liar from a video of them? What does that mean?

As soon as it’s able to detect lying, it’ll be used for that purpose. Probably a little bit before it’s actually capable of doing it reliably.

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#93

Post by robertlagrant »

ethanbond wrote: post #92
robertlagrant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as AI is able to tell a liar from a video of them? What does that mean?

As soon as it’s able to detect lying, it’ll be used for that purpose. Probably a little bit before it’s actually capable of doing it reliably.

> As soon as it’s able to detect lying, it’ll be used for that purpose.

That's not the thing I was talking about.

> Probably a little bit before it’s actually capable of doing it reliably.

I think you said that already?

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#94

Post by swader999 »

andai wrote: post #86
npteljes wrote: post #77

Bad premise, and therefore nonsense conclusions, because AI can have many uses, aside from surveillance. In this regard, it's not like a gun, which is very specifically an instrument to kill, and has secondary uses like shooting sports, but rather it's a tool, like tongs, which can be used for building, cooking, and also to torture someone. Advertising companies are jumping at AI for two things: it is hoped that it c…

In many countries guns are used in a nonlethal way. My friend during psychosis stabbed a policeman in the leg with a kitchen knife, and was only shot in the leg as a response.

I don't think any country has a police force with a shoot to wound policy. Your friend was extremely lucky. It's not practical to shoot to wound in most circumstances. The arms and legs move faster than a shooter can react and that's why center of mass is what is trained.

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#95

Post by bamboozled »

nine_k wrote: post #87

Science and technology are fundamentally about overcoming limitations and enabling previously impossible things. The process is ethically neutral, or oblivious if you will. Once you discover nitration, it will be used to produce both hunger-reducing fertilizers and devastating explosives. One cannot be discovered without the other, because they often involve the same chemical compounds. If you used said limitations t…

You've left out the "unintended consequences" bit? Soil degradation at scale from fertilizer use? Ocean run off?

It's time to think not how to ban the privacy-invading AI (it will never work), but how to have a smaller footprint that may be used to invade your privacy, and, most importantly, how to run things in such.a way that invading your privacy is not profitable, even though still possible. And, inevitably, learn to live with even less privacy by default.

When 50%+ of the cars driving around your city are Google / Waymo cars which are essentially intelligence gathering tanks with unparalleled surveillance capability, I don't see how anyone is going to be reducing any footprints ? Cashless society? Home assistant robots that "phone home"? Face it, this is not going to be getting better anytime soon. We can try adapt all we like but maybe we should just be walking around with EMP emitting back packs on if we care about our privacy?

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#96

Post by [deleted] »

nine_k wrote: post #87

Science and technology are fundamentally about overcoming limitations and enabling previously impossible things. The process is ethically neutral, or oblivious if you will. Once you discover nitration, it will be used to produce both hunger-reducing fertilizers and devastating explosives. One cannot be discovered without the other, because they often involve the same chemical compounds. If you used said limitations t…

[deleted]

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#97

Post by [deleted] »

npteljes wrote: post #77

Bad premise, and therefore nonsense conclusions, because AI can have many uses, aside from surveillance. In this regard, it's not like a gun, which is very specifically an instrument to kill, and has secondary uses like shooting sports, but rather it's a tool, like tongs, which can be used for building, cooking, and also to torture someone. Advertising companies are jumping at AI for two things: it is hoped that it c…

[deleted]

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#99

Post by einr »

swader999 wrote: post #94
andai wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many countries guns are used in a nonlethal way. My friend during psychosis stabbed a policeman in the leg with a kitchen knife, and was only shot in the leg as a response.

I don't think any country has a police force with a shoot to wound policy. Your friend was extremely lucky. It's not practical to shoot to wound in most circumstances. The arms and legs move faster than a shooter can react and that's why center of mass is what is trained.

Sweden does. (I know because I live in Sweden.)

https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befog...

Relevant part:

"Om polisen skjuter mot en person ska de sträva efter att bara för tillfället oskadliggöra personen. Skotten ska i första hand riktas mot benen, men om omständigheterna kräver det får polisen skjuta direkt mot överkroppen – till exempel om den hotfulla personen befinner sig nära i avstånd och angreppet går fort."

Google translation:

"If the police shoot at a person, they must aim to render the person harmless only for the time being. The shots must primarily be aimed at the legs, but if the circumstances require it, the police may shoot directly at the upper body - for example, if the threatening person is close in distance and the attack is fast."

EDIT: some data from https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befog... -- out of 1.13 million police interventions in 2022, shots were fired at a person or vehicle 21 times. Out of those, 2 had lethal outcomes.

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#100

Post by tomrod »

johnnyworker wrote: post #54
jdthedisciple wrote: post #5

Does anybody know of a facial recognition AI that actually classifies faces as (non)-liars as she claims? Not sure about this take. You need data at the end of the day, to build good AI models. These days it feels like anyone's public takes are more or less just a means to promote their own cause. And I say this as a happy and long-time Signal user.

The point isn't whether those things are correct. They are used as tools of surveillance and oppression. > These are ultimately surveillance systems that are being marketed to those who have power over us generally: our employers, governments, border control, etc., to make determinations and predictions that will shape our access to resources and opportunities. And hey, the more arbitrary or even false something is,…

>> Authorities penalized families over a mere suspicion of fraud based on the system’s risk indicators. Tens of thousands of families — often with lower incomes or belonging to ethnic minorities — were pushed into poverty because of exorbitant debts to the tax agency. Some victims committed suicide. More than a thousand children were taken into foster care.

> Let that sink in.

The need for governance is important. In this case, an automated (imperfect) labeling system was the arbiter for classification. That should never happen.

Post reply on HN