5 ms·

Two scary things about this: - When you can't trust those who have access to it (including those who have access to it in the future.) IMO this means everybody

Two scary things about this: - When you can't trust those who have access to it (including those who have access to it in the future.) IMO this means everybody who learned anything from history should be scared. - When it becomes almost 100% reliable and some unlucky person gets convicted because of a glitch but no-one cares because they trust the system.

beobab 9y ago
Isn't this the plot of Minority Report? :)
- throwaway628579 9y ago
  And Person of Interest.
- sametmax 9y ago
  And way before that, the terrifying and disturbing "brazil".
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    The Minority Report short story was written in the 1950s.
    - neaden 9y ago
      But effectively has nothing to do with the film, besides the idea that there are three precognitives who predict crime. The characters, plot, twist, etc are all unrelated.
- tabletiptop 9y ago
  You can take the "precog" metaphor used in Minority Report and replace it what's actually happening - dragnet surveillance combined with predictive modeling algorithms to assess each individual's threat level. This is happening so openly that the DHS have done a public Kaggle competition to improve their algos for body scanners at airports. Now extrapolate a very short distance from there and think about what they're doing that's classified. Even the most unimaginative of us can see what's happening here. Over the past several years I've seen the automatic reflex response to this concern go from "well if you've got nothing to hide" to "well, I mean they're not watching me or you specifically, they don't have the man power". Well, you're right, but not for the reason you think. The fact is they don't need man power any longer. The algos are watching you.
  - ataturk 9y ago
    It is amazing how on the one hand people can detest Nazis and Soviets saying things like "I can't believe they could have been so stupid to have gone along with that" and then on the other hand, aid and abet the police state in a Kaggle competition of all things! I know it is naive of me to think that if I don't assist that it won't happen because someone will step up if for no other reason than bragging rights. A long time ago I made a decision about my career and that was that I would not work for the MIC. It was a tough choice at times because so much US industry is involved with government one way or another and even private companies have governments as their major customers so it is all intertwined. Not all government is bad, though, but the shit like body scanners and all that--that's your technocratic police state writ large. I don't imagine the future is going to be very rosy. It is top down control forever.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      The Stalin, Hilter, Mao, etc. created secret police and whatnot to enforce their continued rule. They are despised mostly for what their rule entailed, not for having secret police. We're* creating secret police but in the absence of an oppressive government for them to act on the whims of nobody much cares. It'll get worse before it gets better. * We = most nations formerly on the "right" side of the iron curtain
    - nwah1 9y ago
      The bottom-up control scenarios aren't really that much better. The scary part is the power of AI itself. If a twitter mob gets a hold of it, or a non-state terrorist network, or just some lone wolf, then the results can be as bad or worse than any Big Brother scenario.
pksadiq 9y ago
> ... and some unlucky person gets convicted ... It could be worse. What if the world resources gets depleted and some people (who can control) decides to get rid of a major population? What if they act as someone said, "One way or the other, the world is going to end. So let's end it on our terms."
- hutzlibu 9y ago
  World ressources are allways going to be depleted. 8000 years ago it was good hunting ground, that was scarce and if too many wanted it, they fought. Now with advanced technology it is some special minerals or oil. And yes there is fighting going on about it and people get killed. Lots of them. But there is no natural end to "ressources" in general. There is allways shortage of something and fight about it, but also discovery and development how to get around and get access to other resources which serve the same effect or new technology which makes the old obsolete. Doesn't mean, that there could not be a major escalation, though, but getting "rid of a major population" is not something someone smart would dare, as it can get out of control too easily. And those people in control are usually smart, otherwise they would not be in control.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The other poster isn't trying to lay out a worst case scenario, they are talking about harm from a likely scenario, one where most people think things are "fine".
thfuran 9y ago
>When it becomes almost 100% reliable and some unlucky person gets convicted because of a glitch but no-one cares because they trust the system. Wouldn't that be a massive improvement over the current state of things? Convictions are currently made on the basis of very unreliable things.
- ams6110 9y ago
  Not really. The system certainly isn't perfect, but the vast majority of people convicted are actually guilty. Is the system vulnerable to a person being targeted, evidence fabricated, and a false conviction obtained? Yes, assuming malicious intent or corruption. I'm not sure AI fixes that.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    GP is asking if a system that's almost 100% right isn't better than the current, which is somewhat, sorta right, more often than not.
- jancsika 9y ago
  That would only be a massive improvement if you have a set of almost 100% perfectly just laws to accompany your near-perfect enforcement. I've seen a lot of things on HN, but I've never seen anyone argue that the current set of state and federal laws in the U.S. are anywhere close to 100% just. So you're going to have to factor in the cost of having perfect enforcement of unjust laws. There's also the problem of trying to curb the bad effects of perfect enforcement after the fact. Show me a politician willing to scale back some of the bad law passed post-911. That's a difficult task because nobody wants the liability of being the one who was "soft on terrorism" or whatever the claim would be. If you take those costs seriously, you'll need to take steps to ensure that the system does not in practice attempt to do perfect enforcement. And your arguments will sound more and more counter-intuitive as the capability for perfect enforcement-- and the dollars it would bring to a municipality-- grows.
arca_vorago 9y ago
>IMO this means everybody who learned anything from history should be scared. Which is why tptb took over education and have manipulated how it teaches history. They want us to love our upcoming neofuedal state. That's why when people talk about Orwell vs Huxley I say; It's a brave new world... until you resist. Then it's 1984.

beobab 9y ago

Isn't this the plot of Minority Report? :)

throwaway628579 9y ago
And Person of Interest.
sametmax 9y ago
And way before that, the terrifying and disturbing "brazil".
- maxerickson 9y ago
  The Minority Report short story was written in the 1950s.
  - neaden 9y ago
    But effectively has nothing to do with the film, besides the idea that there are three precognitives who predict crime. The characters, plot, twist, etc are all unrelated.
tabletiptop 9y ago
You can take the "precog" metaphor used in Minority Report and replace it what's actually happening - dragnet surveillance combined with predictive modeling algorithms to assess each individual's threat level. This is happening so openly that the DHS have done a public Kaggle competition to improve their algos for body scanners at airports. Now extrapolate a very short distance from there and think about what they're doing that's classified. Even the most unimaginative of us can see what's happening here. Over the past several years I've seen the automatic reflex response to this concern go from "well if you've got nothing to hide" to "well, I mean they're not watching me or you specifically, they don't have the man power". Well, you're right, but not for the reason you think. The fact is they don't need man power any longer. The algos are watching you.
- ataturk 9y ago
  It is amazing how on the one hand people can detest Nazis and Soviets saying things like "I can't believe they could have been so stupid to have gone along with that" and then on the other hand, aid and abet the police state in a Kaggle competition of all things! I know it is naive of me to think that if I don't assist that it won't happen because someone will step up if for no other reason than bragging rights. A long time ago I made a decision about my career and that was that I would not work for the MIC. It was a tough choice at times because so much US industry is involved with government one way or another and even private companies have governments as their major customers so it is all intertwined. Not all government is bad, though, but the shit like body scanners and all that--that's your technocratic police state writ large. I don't imagine the future is going to be very rosy. It is top down control forever.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    The Stalin, Hilter, Mao, etc. created secret police and whatnot to enforce their continued rule. They are despised mostly for what their rule entailed, not for having secret police. We're* creating secret police but in the absence of an oppressive government for them to act on the whims of nobody much cares. It'll get worse before it gets better. * We = most nations formerly on the "right" side of the iron curtain
  - nwah1 9y ago
    The bottom-up control scenarios aren't really that much better. The scary part is the power of AI itself. If a twitter mob gets a hold of it, or a non-state terrorist network, or just some lone wolf, then the results can be as bad or worse than any Big Brother scenario.

pksadiq 9y ago

> ... and some unlucky person gets convicted ... It could be worse. What if the world resources gets depleted and some people (who can control) decides to get rid of a major population? What if they act as someone said, "One way or the other, the world is going to end. So let's end it on our terms."

hutzlibu 9y ago
World ressources are allways going to be depleted. 8000 years ago it was good hunting ground, that was scarce and if too many wanted it, they fought. Now with advanced technology it is some special minerals or oil. And yes there is fighting going on about it and people get killed. Lots of them. But there is no natural end to "ressources" in general. There is allways shortage of something and fight about it, but also discovery and development how to get around and get access to other resources which serve the same effect or new technology which makes the old obsolete. Doesn't mean, that there could not be a major escalation, though, but getting "rid of a major population" is not something someone smart would dare, as it can get out of control too easily. And those people in control are usually smart, otherwise they would not be in control.
maxerickson 9y ago
The other poster isn't trying to lay out a worst case scenario, they are talking about harm from a likely scenario, one where most people think things are "fine".

thfuran 9y ago

>When it becomes almost 100% reliable and some unlucky person gets convicted because of a glitch but no-one cares because they trust the system. Wouldn't that be a massive improvement over the current state of things? Convictions are currently made on the basis of very unreliable things.

ams6110 9y ago
Not really. The system certainly isn't perfect, but the vast majority of people convicted are actually guilty. Is the system vulnerable to a person being targeted, evidence fabricated, and a false conviction obtained? Yes, assuming malicious intent or corruption. I'm not sure AI fixes that.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  GP is asking if a system that's almost 100% right isn't better than the current, which is somewhat, sorta right, more often than not.
jancsika 9y ago
That would only be a massive improvement if you have a set of almost 100% perfectly just laws to accompany your near-perfect enforcement. I've seen a lot of things on HN, but I've never seen anyone argue that the current set of state and federal laws in the U.S. are anywhere close to 100% just. So you're going to have to factor in the cost of having perfect enforcement of unjust laws. There's also the problem of trying to curb the bad effects of perfect enforcement after the fact. Show me a politician willing to scale back some of the bad law passed post-911. That's a difficult task because nobody wants the liability of being the one who was "soft on terrorism" or whatever the claim would be. If you take those costs seriously, you'll need to take steps to ensure that the system does not in practice attempt to do perfect enforcement. And your arguments will sound more and more counter-intuitive as the capability for perfect enforcement-- and the dollars it would bring to a municipality-- grows.

arca_vorago 9y ago

>IMO this means everybody who learned anything from history should be scared. Which is why tptb took over education and have manipulated how it teaches history. They want us to love our upcoming neofuedal state. That's why when people talk about Orwell vs Huxley I say; It's a brave new world... until you resist. Then it's 1984.