Live data from Hacker News

AI Police Reports: Year in Review

eff.org

201–210 of 224 posts

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#201
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're putting words into the other user's mouth, though, by assuming they mean "everyone" and not just "the innocent proportion of accused people". So this seems like a good place to take your own advice, right?

No, I responded to their comment as-is. It's you putting words in someone's mouth again, not I. The way you can tell what they mean is this line: "More you punish the victims better you make out." Nobody in America thinks that judges make out for punishing actually-innocent people. That's not what "victims" means here.

They didn't say "judges". I think the American justice system has a grandiose disregard for its impacts on the falsely accused.

You're doing the thing again, even now.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#202
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I responded to their comment as-is. It's you putting words in someone's mouth again, not I. The way you can tell what they mean is this line: "More you punish the victims better you make out." Nobody in America thinks that judges make out for punishing actually-innocent people. That's not what "victims" means here.

They didn't say "judges". I think the American justice system has a grandiose disregard for its impacts on the falsely accused. You're doing the thing again, even now.

I agree, I think it does as well. That's not what the guy said, though.

I think I'm just reading what his comment says, but maybe I am doing the same thing as you. I'm just better at it. I got his position correct, you got it wrong.

You told me what I believe, you got that wrong, too.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#203
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You guys are so fucked. "You guys"? Everyone is fucked. This is going to be everywhere. Coming to your neighborhood, eventually.

Not everyone lives in a 3rd world authoritarian backwater, its time to stop that ridiculous US-centrism

Sure, not everyone. Just the US, the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Netherlands, Chile, Argentina, or Honduras. I'm sure it will pass.

It's not US-centrism. It's just an acknowledgement of the recent trend.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#204
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont live in a police state.

I guess that means you don't live in the US, or in the UK, or in Australia.

Don't forget about France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia, Netherlands, Chile, Argentina, or Honduras. Right-wing authoritarianism is not limited to the anglosphere.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#205
post #196
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to make your comment useful, you could share some information about where you understand policing in America to have originated.

Law enforcement is an idea that originated when law originated. There is no law without enforcement. American settlers got the idea from the same place they got the idea for laws. Their home countries. Enforcing laws isn't an American invention, let's not be ridiculous.

> Law enforcement is an idea that originated when law originated. There is no law without enforcement.

To the extent this anything more than circular it's false. Although psychopaths exist, on the whole compliance to a lesser or greater degree is a normal human trait. So you can tell people what the rules are and they'll obey to some extent. How much varies from person to person.

So the creation of specialist law enforcement bodies is a distinct and relatively modern change to civilisations. Before this, there is either no actual enforcement or it depends on whether a powerful person knows you broke a rule and cares to enforce it.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#206
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't say "judges". I think the American justice system has a grandiose disregard for its impacts on the falsely accused. You're doing the thing again, even now.

I agree, I think it does as well. That's not what the guy said, though. I think I'm just reading what his comment says, but maybe I am doing the same thing as you. I'm just better at it. I got his position correct, you got it wrong. You told me what I believe, you got that wrong, too.

I didn't tell you, I asked :)

From my POV you seem to be making a lot of inferences and then declaring them correct, based on some information about the original intent that I must not be privy to?

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you mean it doesn't set its own goals? Or what did you mean by "determine the why" if not a stack trace of its motivations(which is to say, its programming)? Could you give an example of determinimg meaning or value?

Yes, set its own goals. Here's an example - say you wanted to track your spending, you might create a spreadsheet to do so. The spreadsheet won't write itself. If you want, you could perhaps task an ai to monitor and track spending - but it doesn't care. It is the human that cares/feels/values whatever-it-is. Computers are not that type. Is your position that humans are pretty mechanistic, and simply playing out thei…

>Is your position that humans are [...] simply playing out their programming?

Yes, at least it's what I wanted to drill further into.

Boiled down, I'm interested in hearing where "intelligent" people derive their motivations(I'm in agreement that most people are on ["non-intelligent" if you will] auto-pilot most of the time) if not from outside themselves, in your framework.

When does a goal start being my intelligent own goal? Any impetus for something can be traced back to not-yourself: I might decide to start tracking my spending, but that decision doesn't form out of the void. Maybe I value frugality, but I did not create that value in myself. It was instilled in me by experience, or my peers, etc. I see no way for one to "spontaneously" form a motivation, or if I wanted to take it one step further(into the Buddha's territory), I would have to question who, and where, and what this "self" even is.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#208
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law enforcement is an idea that originated when law originated. There is no law without enforcement. American settlers got the idea from the same place they got the idea for laws. Their home countries. Enforcing laws isn't an American invention, let's not be ridiculous.

> Law enforcement is an idea that originated when law originated. There is no law without enforcement. To the extent this anything more than circular it's false. Although psychopaths exist, on the whole compliance to a lesser or greater degree is a normal human trait. So you can tell people what the rules are and they'll obey to some extent. How much varies from person to person. So the creation of specialist law enf…

Law enforcement organizations existed in ancient times, such as prefects in ancient China, paqūdus in Babylonia, curaca in the Inca Empire, vigiles in the Roman Empire, and Medjay in ancient Egypt. Who law enforcers were and reported to depended on the civilization and often changed over time, but they were typically slaves, soldiers, officers of a judge, or hired by settlements and households. Aside from their duties to enforce laws, many ancient law enforcers also served as slave catchers, firefighters, watchmen, city guards, and bodyguards.

By the post-classical period and the Middle Ages, forces such as the Santa Hermandades, the shurta, and the Maréchaussée provided services ranging from law enforcement and personal protection to customs enforcement and waste collection. In England, a complex law enforcement system emerged, where tithings, groups of ten families, were responsible for ensuring good behavior and apprehending criminals; groups of ten tithings ("hundreds") were overseen by a reeve; hundreds were governed by administrative divisions known as shires; and shires were overseen by shire-reeves. In feudal Japan, samurai were responsible for enforcing laws.

The concept of police as the primary law enforcement organization originated in Europe in the early modern period; the first statutory police force was the High Constables of Edinburgh in 1611, while the first organized police force was the Paris lieutenant général de police in 1667. Until the 18th century, law enforcement in England was mostly the responsibility of private citizens and thief-takers, albeit also including constables and watchmen. This system gradually shifted to government control following the 1749 establishment of the London Bow Street Runners, the first formal police force in Britain. In 1800, Napoleon reorganized French law enforcement to form the Paris Police Prefecture; the British government passed the Glasgow Police Act, establishing the City of Glasgow Police; and the Thames River Police was formed in England to combat theft on the River Thames. In September 1829, Robert Peel merged the Bow Street Runners and the Thames River Police to form the Metropolitan Police. The title of the "first modern police force" has still been claimed by the modern successors to these organizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement

The Americans do have a history of using Police forces for Slave capture, but Police forces in the USA PRE DATED that

Following European colonization of the Americas, the first law enforcement agencies in the Thirteen Colonies were the New York Sheriff's Office and the edit County Sheriff's Department, both formed in the 1660s in the Province of New York. The Province of Carolina established slave-catcher patrols in the 1700s, and by 1785, the Charleston Guard and Watch was reported to have the duties and organization of a modern police force. The first municipal police department in the United States was the Philadelphia Police Department, while the first American state police, federal law enforcement agency was the United States Marshals Service, both formed in 1789. In the American frontier, law enforcement was the responsibility of county sheriffs, rangers, constables, and marshals. The first law enforcement agency in Canada was the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, established in 1729, while the first Canadian national law enforcement agency was the Dominion Police, established in 1868.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, set its own goals. Here's an example - say you wanted to track your spending, you might create a spreadsheet to do so. The spreadsheet won't write itself. If you want, you could perhaps task an ai to monitor and track spending - but it doesn't care. It is the human that cares/feels/values whatever-it-is. Computers are not that type. Is your position that humans are pretty mechanistic, and simply playing out thei…

>Is your position that humans are [...] simply playing out their programming? Yes, at least it's what I wanted to drill further into. Boiled down, I'm interested in hearing where "intelligent" people derive their motivations(I'm in agreement that most people are on ["non-intelligent" if you will] auto-pilot most of the time) if not from outside themselves, in your framework. When does a goal start being my intelligen…

Here's a question for you. Imagine a child who was well looked after (fed and loved) but didn't go to school for 12+ years. Now imagine the same person who from the age of 5-6 followed the usual path of 12+ years of schooling. Which person do you imagine would be more fully themselves, the more complete expression of whatever was already inside? If the schooled person did a PhD too (so another 6 years) would that help or hinder them from becoming themselves?

To me, the answer is obvious. Inserting thousands of ideas and patterns of thoughts into a person will be unlikely to help them become a true expression of their nature. If you know gardening, the schooled person is more like a trained tree - grown in a way that suits the farmer - the more tied back the tree is, the less free it is.

As I see it, each individual is unique, with a soul. Each is capable of reaching a full expression of itself, by itself. What I also see is that there are many systems that are intentional manipulations, put in place in order to farm individuals at the individual's expense. The more education one receives, the more amenable one is to being 'farmed' according to the terms that were inserted. To me, this is the installation of an unnatural and servile mentality, which once adopted makes the person easy to harness - the person will even think being harnessed and 'in service' is right and good.

The problem is that these principles were not their own. These are like religious beliefs, and unlike principles founded according to personal experience. Received principles will always be unnatural. Acting according to them, is to act in an inauthentic way. However, there is no material reason to address the inauthenticity, as when one looks around, everyone else is doing the same. This results in a self-supporting, collective delusion.

In my view there are answers to what the self is - but 'society' cannot teach you them - it can only fill you with delusions. Imo, you would be on a better footing to forget everything you think you know (this costs you nothing) and do something like apply the scientific method personally - let your personal experiences guide you. Know the difference between 'knowing' because of experience and 'belief' because you were taught it. Even more simply, know thyself.

Re: AI Police Reports: Year in Review

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is your position that humans are [...] simply playing out their programming? Yes, at least it's what I wanted to drill further into. Boiled down, I'm interested in hearing where "intelligent" people derive their motivations(I'm in agreement that most people are on ["non-intelligent" if you will] auto-pilot most of the time) if not from outside themselves, in your framework. When does a goal start being my intelligen…

Here's a question for you. Imagine a child who was well looked after (fed and loved) but didn't go to school for 12+ years. Now imagine the same person who from the age of 5-6 followed the usual path of 12+ years of schooling. Which person do you imagine would be more fully themselves, the more complete expression of whatever was already inside? If the schooled person did a PhD too (so another 6 years) would that hel…

My position is that we are nothing but our circumstances(I'm assuming that we're in agreement that genetics, pre-birth nutrition etc, are part of these circumstances and not of the 'soul' you're after?), or to put it more directly: We are our circumstances. Our Soul Is That. There is nothing that is "already inside".

The tree does not exist in isolation, separate from the patterns of rain and sunshine that shape its growth. "The separation is an illusion".

I have indeed been on the same path as you of trying to shed delusions and applying the scientific method, and have up to this point found no indication of any "causeless cause" to steer me besides the fundamental is-ness of the universe.

Put bluntly, I believe that if you hadn't started with the assumption of a soul, you would be entirely unable to arrive at the conclusion of a soul by rational methods. And starting by assuming the unproven instead of emptyness is epistemological cheating.

Post reply on HN