Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
vocativ.com
Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
#214 years ago I told my teacher at a very respected uni that real-time facial recognition would surely be used by gov for security.
He said I was insane and that this would be extremely hard to implement and it was very improbable that it would ever happen. He basically demoralized me in front of my colleagues.
Needless to say he failed to convince otherwise and I lost all respect for him.
Re: Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
#3The only viable solution to this is regulation, and our only real hopes for it are the ACLU and the EFF.
Re: Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
#4Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes.
Re: Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
#5The only viable solution to this is regulation, and our only real hopes for it are the ACLU and the EFF.
It's too easy to implement, so it can't be regularized.
The only thing you get in return is that you'll be able to recognize the faces of police officers as well with the same technology. The world is shrinking, and it will feel like we're all living in a huge village.
Re: Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
#6The only viable solution to this is regulation, and our only real hopes for it are the ACLU and the EFF.
It's too easy to implement, so it can't be regularized. The only thing you get in return is that you'll be able to recognize the faces of police officers as well with the same technology. The world is shrinking, and it will feel like we're all living in a huge village.
The only thing you get in return is that you'll be able to recognize the faces of police officers as well with the same technology.
Re: Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
#7Facial Recognition - This is who person is based on this face
Facial Detection - This part of image is a face
The article is referring to facial detection and object classification and not, as is mentioned, facial recognition. Also, it would certainly NOT be real time. Computers are still quite poor at this even if they take a super long amount of time and processing power.
Re: Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
#814 years ago I told my teacher at a very respected uni that real-time facial recognition would surely be used by gov for security. He said I was insane and that this would be extremely hard to implement and it was very improbable that it would ever happen. He basically demoralized me in front of my colleagues. Needless to say he failed to convince otherwise and I lost all respect for him.
One rule of thumb I've found very useful is that if someone says a proposed or imagined outcome is impossible rather than asking how would that work, it's probably bullshit.
Obviously if they can follow through with a good reason like pointing out a violation of thermodynamics or some inherent mathematical paradox you should take that seriously, but the more reflexive the dismissal the less well-founded it usually turns out to be.
Re: Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
#9Facial Recognition - This is who person is based on this face Facial Detection - This part of image is a face The article is referring to facial detection and object classification and not, as is mentioned, facial recognition. Also, it would certainly NOT be real time. Computers are still quite poor at this even if they take a super long amount of time and processing power.
And who would have thought back in 2007 that Facebook would be able tot identify people in photos with relative accuracy in close to real time? It's possible and there are large social incentives to do it because it has the potential to benefit people in many contexts. Those are the sufficient conditions for any given technology to become near ubiquitous.
Re: Taser has started its own in-house AI unit
#10The only viable solution to this is regulation, and our only real hopes for it are the ACLU and the EFF.
You can't regulate technology out of existence; the harder you try the greater the potential rewards for using it asymmetrically. I can think of legal objections, but I can also think of equally good arguments that circumvent those objections. Rather than wishing a new technology away, which has never ever worked, it's better to assume it will be the norm and then try to imagine what countermeasures would be deployed in response.