Earlier quoted context omitted.
False equivalence. GP complained about a specific behavior, not about specific people.
Yes it's always some reasonably specific behavior that justifies the harsh new rules.
Save your rhetorical contortions.
AI and Mass Spying
341–349 of 349 posts
Re: AI and Mass Spying
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is greyer than this. Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover, distasteful as they are, I believe acted in what they would claim is good faith. The issue isn't that someone is a bad actor. It is that they believe they are a good actor and are busy stripping away others' rights in their pursuit.
Maybe in their minds they thought the end justified the means, but there's no way anyone, even themselves, mistakes those means for good faith.
Sure. the question was whether AI will continue to enable mass spying and making the affordability of mass spying a tool humans rely on.
They will. It will. We will see that erosion.
Re: AI and Mass Spying
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not an elite person problem. Certainly, some of the more exotic and flashy things you can do with surveillance are an elite person problem. But the two main limits to police power are that it takes time and resources to establish that a crime occurred, and it takes time and resources to determine who committed a crime. A distant third is the officer/DA's personal discretion as to whether or not to purse enforceme…
>Did a bug fly in your mouth yesterday, and you spit it out on the sidewalk in view of a camera? Better be extra obsequious when Officer No-Neck with "You're fucked" written on his service weapon pulls up to the gas station you're pumping at. If you don't show whatever deference he deems adequate, he's got a list of petty crimes he can issue a citation for, entirely at his discretion. >> HN crowd (upper middle-class,…
I've been pulled over several times for being cutoff ("You didn't signal for a full 5 seconds when you changed lanes" "I was taking evasive action to not hit the guy...!") while driving a vehicle with out-of-state plates. I am 2 degrees of separation away from at least 2 people killed by police for having medical conditions that interfered with immediate compliance.
Per the US department of justice[0], in 2018, about 2% of all police interactions involve threats of or actual violence. About half of the time, the member of the public who experienced the (threats of) violence said that it was excessive, but it would take a fairer, more rational person than me to get justifiably tazed, then say "yeah, I had that coming". I wasn't able to find statistics on how justified that violence is.
The punchline is that every time you have a police interaction, its betting odds that it ends in violence for you. Based on the 2018 data, 0.5% of the overall adult population experienced (threats of) violence from police. That's when police are able to gin up probable cause. The courts have a complicated opinion about whether or not algorithmically derived probable cause is in fact probable cause [1,2]. Anything that increases public/police interactions is going to increase police-on-public violence if the police don't also experience significant non-violent de-escalation training.
I think one of the key things that needs to be determined before we cry havoc and let slip the dogs of surveillance is to come to a real conclusion about what level of crime allows the police officer to initiate contact with only a positive ID from e.g. a bodycam. I'd argue that, if nothing else, non-violent misdemeanors that carry no mandatory jail time are not cause to initiate contact.
0. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf
1. https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/05/30/n-j-supreme-court-ru...
Re: AI and Mass Spying
#344I don't know why this isn't being discussed more. The reality of the surveillance state is that the sheer amount of data couldn't realistically be monitored - AI very directly solves this problem by summarizing complex data. This, IMO, is the real danger of AI, at least in the short term - not a planet of paperclips, not a moral misalignment, not a media landscape bereft of creativity - but rather a tool for targetin…
An AI summary could be made of your post by cutting it off after > This, IMO, is the real danger of AI (at present) Then the following part would be condensed into emotional rhetorical metadata. It follows the rhetorical pattern , "not a, not b, not c - but d" which do in fact add some content value but more so add flavour. What it shows is that you might be a trouble maker. But also combined with other bits of data…
I can be a trouble maker and I am interested in those movies and products.
Re: AI and Mass Spying
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
You most definitely cannot disturb wildlife or rural communities with noise.
Don't be pedantic, I specifically said my intention was not to inflict unwanted noise on my neighbors.
Don't be daft. There is no vacuum where you can go be a massive tool and not face any consequences.
Re: AI and Mass Spying
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it's always some reasonably specific behavior that justifies the harsh new rules.
Save your rhetorical contortions.
Stop throwing logical wrong logical evaluations around and you won't hear people retorts, saving the need for you to whine about it.
Re: AI and Mass Spying
#347next time they try to root out whatever 'vermin' defined; it will be a quick natural language prompt trained on ingested data from the last 2 decades to get that list of names and addresses / networks. AI is going to make targeting groups with differing ideologies dead simple. It will be used.
[dead]
Re: AI and Mass Spying
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels pretty legit though. My freedom-from is impacted by other people's freedom-to: by curtailing their freedom, mine is expanded. Sure they won't like it - but I don't like it the other way round either.
This doesn't add up. At best your overall freedom remains the same. You gain quiet, you lose the freedom to make noise yourself. Seems like a net-negative to me. Consider how little freedom you would have if laws were enforced to the lowest common denominator of what people find acceptable.
You're missing the point that the freedom from and freedom to may be weighted differently for each individual.
For instance I lose almost nothing by not having the freedom to carry a weapon (UK) as I have no desire to do so, while gaining a lot from having the freedom to not risk my child being murdered at school.
It's an extreme example but applies to a lesser degree for other freedoms, and I've personally found I often benefit more from freedoms-from than freedoms-to.
I'd love it if no vehicle could exceed 30 mph in town as I gain almost no benefit from being able to do so, while taking on significant risk from others being able to.
Re: AI and Mass Spying
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But reality is, even if they put all their private data on a website, heresallmyprivatedata.com, nobody cares. It'll have 0 external views. This is obviously false. Personal data is a multi billion dollar industry operating across all shades of legality.
Ads is not surveillance
Ads require surveillance to be relevant/valuable. You can't advertise to someone you know nothing about.