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

131–140 of 201 posts

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#131

Post by [deleted] »

DrScientist wrote: post #90
imgabe wrote: post #48

I think people do a disservice to their cause when they make semantic arguments like this. Isn't enough to say that AI can be used for enhanced surveillance by malicious actors? What does it mean to be a "surveillance technology"? Now you have people arguing about whether AI fits the definition of this made up term instead of talking about the potentially nefarious surveillance applications.

I think she is pointing out there is a bit of a vicious cycle. AI needs data [1], so in the end people compete on the data - this drives more and more surveillance type behaviour - including using AI to collect data [2]. [1] not controversial I hope [2] eg face recognition, identification by joining the dots from traded data. It's not necessarily nefarious per se - just the dynamic - and once the data is out there...…

[deleted]

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#132

Post by olalonde »

insanitybit wrote: post #123

I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. I can even train it locally on my own data if I want to. Hyperbole really serves no purpose when it's so extreme. Instead of talking about the merits of "how can this technology be abused?" you're putting everyone else on the defensive, having to say "I'm not abusing it". Like, > AI is a way, I think, to entrench and expand the surveillance business model,” she…

The term "surveillance business model" itself is a serious abuse of language. Surveillance is something done by states and police forces, usually to catch criminals or suppress dissent. People use it as a label for Google's business model simply because it has a negative connotation. It's a cheap tactic in my opinion.

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#133

Post by npteljes »

exodust wrote: post #102
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…

> a gun, which is very specifically an instrument to kill Is it though? Maybe a gun is the most efficient way to send a destructive projectile to a nearby target. Any "killing living things" part is secondary to the primary function. > which can be used for building, cooking, and also to torture someone. Okay but that may imply AI is a building technology, & cooking technology... and surveillance technology. That's h…

Yes, in retrospect, guns are instruments created to destruct or hurt, rather than kill. Still, the original point stands: guns are created and used for specific problems, and other tools, in which I include AI, are much more general in usage, even with potential to abuse.

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#134

Post by lmpdev »

This thread is caught up in semantics, which is regrettable

The thesis of the article should have been articulated "AI is disproportionately used as a surveillance technology owning to its computational requirements, the current state of industrial-user relations and the inability for legal systems to respond fast enough to protect individuals"

Edit 1: I don't know how to make that more consise without losing the meat of the argument

Edit 2: the emphasis should be directed to (yet again), industrial-user relations. We really need the equivalent to unions but for representating the rights of users. We're in an unchecked second guilded age and it's wreaking havoc on not just individuals but future businesses. These ill-gotten gains are going to devastate the tech sector, when it inevitably gets corrected in 5-x years

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#135

Post by rewmie »

insanitybit wrote: post #123

I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. I can even train it locally on my own data if I want to. Hyperbole really serves no purpose when it's so extreme. Instead of talking about the merits of "how can this technology be abused?" you're putting everyone else on the defensive, having to say "I'm not abusing it". Like, > AI is a way, I think, to entrench and expand the surveillance business model,” she…

> I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. I can even train it locally on my own data if I want to.

Your poor take is so unrelated to the article that it suggests you didn't even bothered to read the article you're trying to criticize. It completely fails to even take into account the very basic premise presented in the article. It adds nothing to the discussion, and it reads as uninformed contrarian jabs.

Please refrain from adding noise to an otherwise interesting discussion.

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#136

Post by iFreilicht »

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.

Germany does. The situation is less clear cut than what it seems like from the sister comment, but in general, a police officer is legally prohibited from even using a gun unless the situation does not allow for any other means. This can also mean shooting a person to prevent their escape, but even that is only legal in certain circumstances.

Using LETHAL force has even stronger guards on it. Germany itself has no legal grounds for this AT ALL, as far as I know. Some states have a clause in their Police Laws that specifically mention a "Finaler Rettungsschuß" (final saving shot), which is a shot that would kill with "almost certain probability", and it is only allowed if there is no other way for the officer to save themselves or others from significant harm (see quote from law below). The exact legal situation differs between states, but even Bavaria, which has been widely critiqued for its liberal police law, only allows for the final saving shot:

"2) Schußwaffen dürfen gegen Personen nur gebraucht werden, um angriffs- oder fluchtunfähig zu machen. Ein Schuß, der mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit tödlich wirken wird, ist nur zulässig, wenn er das einzige Mittel zur Abwehr einer gegenwärtigen Gefahr für Leib oder Leben einer Person ist."

See https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayPAG-83

EDIT: The amount of deaths by police in Germany reflect this. In 2019, 62 shots have been fired by police officers on people. 15 were lethal, 30 people were injured. https://www.cilip.de/2021/02/02/polizeiliche-todesschuesse-2...

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#137

Post by insanitybit »

rewmie wrote: post #135
insanitybit wrote: post #123

I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. I can even train it locally on my own data if I want to. Hyperbole really serves no purpose when it's so extreme. Instead of talking about the merits of "how can this technology be abused?" you're putting everyone else on the defensive, having to say "I'm not abusing it". Like, > AI is a way, I think, to entrench and expand the surveillance business model,” she…

> I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. I can even train it locally on my own data if I want to. Your poor take is so unrelated to the article that it suggests you didn't even bothered to read the article you're trying to criticize. It completely fails to even take into account the very basic premise presented in the article. It adds nothing to the discussion, and it reads as uninformed contrarian j…

I read the entire article. I literally quoted from it. Did you bother to read my entire comment?

How about when you comment you follow HN guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#138

Post by robertlagrant »

ethanbond wrote: post #115
robertlagrant wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Okay sure let’s take your “bad character” version: of course this is being done. Someone already linked to a commercially available version of it for shoplifters. Of course this type of technology was used to identify protestors in Hong Kong. It was probably also used to identify Jan 6’ers. And in fact you yourself already hedged that this probably is happening, “ But I doubt many people are trying this, except as a…

> Aka you believe that at least some people are already attempting this.

This is getting painfully repetitious, but that was about facial recognition, not deciding if someone's a liar or is of bad character via AI.

> Identifying protesters isn't the same as an AI filming you and deciding if you are of bad character.

Same comment.

Re: AI is fundamentally ‘a surveillance technology’

#140

Post by nologic01 »

api wrote: post #121
nologic01 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is that such a popular opinion. Tech has been financed for decades by individuals, corporates and public sector actors. Even today a large fraction is financed by "healthy" tech services demand. One of the many dramatic flaws of surveillance capitalism is that it cannot really provide the entire tech stack society needs. It thrives as a parasitic model, predicated on political dysfunction and public ignorance. So…

People have been conditioned to see software and even online services as something that should be "free." That's what I'm referring to. It's obviously a bigger issue for B2C than B2B. If everything has to be "free" then it becomes impossible to create sophisticated software or run any kind of service without finding some scuzzy way to double-dip and sell out your users. There is no viable business model that aligns t…

Yes, that is alas a prevailing mindset in consumer behavior. But it is indeed a case of "conditioning" which requires authorities to offer tacit approval for these freebies. Do you remember, e.g., how India snubbed facebook's "free basics" plan?

> it becomes impossible to create sophisticated software or run any kind of service

This. While monetizing user behavior is very valuable there is a ceiling to it. It can't make up for the huge potential value of all the things one can possibly build.

At some point we might be forced to conclude that surveillance capitalism makes no long-term economic sense. It is either a bubble or actually a political choice to sacrifice a real digital economy in favor of control.

Post reply on HN