Live data from Hacker News

AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

gabrielweinberg.com

151–160 of 236 posts

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#151

Is there anyone who has a credible take on how we avoid an effectively zero-privacy future? AI can identify people by their walk, no facial recognition required, and now technology can detect heartbeats through variations in wifi signals. It seems guaranteed we are heading for a future where someone knows everything. The only choice is whether it's a select few, or everyone. The latter seems clearly preferable.

Legislation or, my favorite, market forces.

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#152
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If China gets to ASI first, the nukes won't matter.

If any country gets ASI first, nukes won't matter. For an ASI, most tasks are more reliably accomplished with all biological life dead. Making a safe ASI is vastly more difficult than the default option of letting it kill everything, so the default will be attempted first.

There's two interpretations of the parent comment:

1) China will get ASI and use it to beat everyone else (militarily or economically). In my reply, I argue we shouldn't race China because even if ASI is achieved and China gets it first, there's nothing they can do quickly enough that we wouldn't be able to build ASI second or nuke them if we couldn't catch up and it became clear they went to become a global dictatorship.

2) China will get ASI, it'll go out of control and kill everyone. In that case, I argue even more that we shouldn't race China but instead deescalate and stop the race.

BTW even in the second case, it would be very hard for the ASI to kill everyone quickly enough, especially those on nuclear submarines. Computers are much more vulnerable to EMPs than humans so a (series of) nuclear explosion(s) like Starfish Prime could be used to destroy all of most of its computers and give humans a fighting chance.

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm banned from a few subreddits for correctly pointing out that ricing is not a pejorative, and the history of the culture that led to extreme customization. You have malevolent third-party bots taking advantage of poor moderation to conflate similar/same word different context pairs to silence communication. For example, the reddit AI bots considers "ricing" to be the same as "rice boy". The latter definitely is pe…

I thought you were going to point out distinct etymology, but these terms do seem linked, no? Not surprising that the shared lineage confers shared problems.

The two are unconnected, one is used as a pejorative which is racist, the other isn't. This is not a hard distinction to make if you aren't a bot.

"I'm ricing my Linux Shell, check it out." That's Racist!

Moderator this person is violating your rules and being racist!

I'm just using AI to determine this. Great! Now they can't contribute. Lets find another.

TL;DR Words have specific meanings, and a growing number of words have been corrupted purposefully to prevent communication, and by extension limit communication to the detriment of all. You get the same ultimate outcomes when people do this as any other false claim. Abuses pile up until eventually in the absence of functioning non-violent conflict resolution; violence forces the system to reform.

Have you noticed that your implication is circular based on the indefinite assumption (foregone conclusion) that the two are linked (tightly coupled)?

You use a lot of ambiguous manipulative language and structure. Doing that makes any reasonable person think you are either a bot, or a malicious actor.

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#154

I stopped using Facebook because I saw a video of a little Australian girl maybe 7 years old age wise holding a spider bigger than her face in her hand. I wrote the most internet meme comment I could think of “girl let go of that spider, we gotta set the house on fire” hit the button to post, only it did not post, it gave me an account strike. At the time I was the only developer at my employer who managed our Facebo…

I'm suspended on reddit for, as best as I can tell, posting a DFhack bug fix script. For the uninitiated, this is a bug fix script for a program commonly used in Dwarf Fortress moderating, not anything illicit. If this kind of low-quality AI moderation is the future, I'm not sure if these major platforms will even remain usable.

Meanwhile the "new" Digg reboot plans on using AI moderators too...

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#155

I stopped using Facebook because I saw a video of a little Australian girl maybe 7 years old age wise holding a spider bigger than her face in her hand. I wrote the most internet meme comment I could think of “girl let go of that spider, we gotta set the house on fire” hit the button to post, only it did not post, it gave me an account strike. At the time I was the only developer at my employer who managed our Facebo…

I've already had a pre-screen coding tests judged by AI. It's unsettling.

I also had a CV rejection letter with AI rejection reasons in it as well which was frustrating because none of the reasons matched my CV at all, in my opinion. I am still not sure if the resume was actually reviewed by a human or AI but I am assuming the latter.

I absolutely hated looking for a new job pre-AI and when times were good. Now I'm feeling completely disillusioned with the whole process.

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#156

I expect we will continue to see the big AI companies pushing for privacy protections. Sam Altman made a comparison to attorney-client privilege in an interview. There is a significant hold out to using these things as fully trusted personal assistants or personal knowledge bases because of the lack of privacy. The only real solution is locally running models, but that goes against the business model. So instead they…

> Sam Altman made a comparison to attorney-client privilege in an interview

Isn't his company, OpenAI, the one that said the monitor all communications and will report anyone they think is a threat to the government?

https://openai.com/index/helping-people-when-they-need-it-mo...

> If human reviewers determine that a case involves an imminent threat of serious physical harm to others, we may refer it to law enforcement.

I get they are trying to do something positive overall. At the same time. I don't want corp owned AI that's monitoring everything I ask it.

IIRC it is illegal for the phone company to monitor and censor communications. The government can ask a judge for permission for police to monitor a line but otherwise it's illegal. But now with AI transcription it won't be long until a company can monitor every call, transcribe it, feed to an LLM to judge and decide which lists you should be on.

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#157

I stopped using Facebook because I saw a video of a little Australian girl maybe 7 years old age wise holding a spider bigger than her face in her hand. I wrote the most internet meme comment I could think of “girl let go of that spider, we gotta set the house on fire” hit the button to post, only it did not post, it gave me an account strike. At the time I was the only developer at my employer who managed our Facebo…

I've already had a pre-screen coding tests judged by AI. It's unsettling. I also had a CV rejection letter with AI rejection reasons in it as well which was frustrating because none of the reasons matched my CV at all, in my opinion. I am still not sure if the resume was actually reviewed by a human or AI but I am assuming the latter. I absolutely hated looking for a new job pre-AI and when times were good. Now I'm f…

They probably generated a generic AI response once and just copy-pasted it, thus saving their time twice. They did not do one scummy thing, these are just overall scummy people.

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#158
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The underlying issue here isn’t AI based policing, it’s the fact private entities have enough unregulated influence on peoples’ daily life that their use of these or any such policy mechanisms are undemocratically effecting people in notably significant ways. The Facebook example is, whatever, but what if it’s some landlord renting making a decision, some health insurance company deciding your coverage, etc. Now obvi…

We already live in this world for health insurance. The ai can make plausible sounding denials which a doctor can rubber stamp. You have no ability to sue the doctor for malpractice, you cannot appeal the decision. Medical insurance is quickly becoming a simple scam where you are forced to pay a private entity that refuses to ever perform its function.

Most first world countries don't have this. It's not a given.

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#159

AI makes large scale retroactive thought policing practical. This is terrifying.

I think people will come to the conclusion that they don’t want to post anything online. Private chats, if they exist, will stay but already, if you generate a work of art, you donate it more or less to the shareholders of Google or Meta. This is even before the thought policing and similar implications.

"...post anything online..." you probably mean "express true thoughts or emotions externally in a proximity of an electronic device".

Re: AI surveillance should be banned while there is still time

#160

Lets not forget that Gabereial Weinburg is a two faced ghoul or wolf in sheep clothing. He has literally said he does not believe people need privacy yet that supposedly is the duckduckgo's main selling point. He has made all kinds of tracking deals with other companies so duckduckgo "is not tracking you" just their partners are. Most of the controversial stuff he has done is being whitewashed from the internet and i…

This is a pretty serious allegation, but cursory searching didn’t yield anything. Do you have any sources you can point to? Being as it’s very difficult to actually ‘whitewash’ things from the internet, I would expect there is something to point to. Thanks!

They use(d?) bing and collect extensive metrics like exactly what you click. Have confirmed this with browser tools, and mitigate it with adguard and plugins.

Must sell it somehow. Likely but have not seen evidence.

Post reply on HN