3 ms·

>We believe it’s important for governments in 2019 to start adopting laws to regulate this technology. We worked on facial recognition for decades, recently ad

>We believe it’s important for governments in 2019 to start adopting laws to regulate this technology. We worked on facial recognition for decades, recently added it to our console and Windows10 Hello, we built a decent API into our cloud.... but um now we need governments to stop us, please? Ok, I mean... I guess I don’t understand big company speak. I didn’t see anywhere they are shutting down their own offerings. The concerns for “race to the bottom” of tech are interesting. A cynical person might think MS was plenty ok with it when they had little competition but now that just anyone can do it they see the problems, as just a sign of self-interest. Not that I disagree facial recognition can be abused, it will if not already is. They got it right with genie in a bottle. I don’t trust government to regulate themselves and expect the largest abuses from them. I highly suspect my time this year in Singapore was ‘heavily calacuated’ everywhere I went.

zamalek 8y ago
Regulation isn't the same thing as prohibition. Biometric sign-in wouldn't be covered by their suggestions. This is probably because biometric sign-in is not inherently abuse of AI/ML. It certainly can be though, but covering that would require prohibiting AI/ML in its entirety, even at home or in academia.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  >Regulation isn't the same thing as prohibition True, but it’s almost always the first step in prohibition. Which isn’t to say I think prohibition possible in this case. Just that asking for government involvement is at very best a double edged sword. As far as I know, the Azure Facial Recogition API goes well beyond signing in to things.
  - geephroh 8y ago
    I would recommend reading Oren Etzioni's piece in this month's Communications of the ACM, "Should AI Technology Be Regulated?: Yes, and Here's How."[1] He lays out some very specific, practical ways that regulation can work, while minimizing impacts on innovation. [1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/12/232893-point-should-ai-technology-be-regulated/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/12/232893-point-should-a...
marcinzm 8y ago
>but um now we need governments to stop us, please? I read it more like: "we now need governments to stop our competition by creating a much higher barrier to entry than we had to deal with."

zamalek 8y ago

Regulation isn't the same thing as prohibition. Biometric sign-in wouldn't be covered by their suggestions. This is probably because biometric sign-in is not inherently abuse of AI/ML. It certainly can be though, but covering that would require prohibiting AI/ML in its entirety, even at home or in academia.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
>Regulation isn't the same thing as prohibition True, but it’s almost always the first step in prohibition. Which isn’t to say I think prohibition possible in this case. Just that asking for government involvement is at very best a double edged sword. As far as I know, the Azure Facial Recogition API goes well beyond signing in to things.
- geephroh 8y ago
  I would recommend reading Oren Etzioni's piece in this month's Communications of the ACM, "Should AI Technology Be Regulated?: Yes, and Here's How."[1] He lays out some very specific, practical ways that regulation can work, while minimizing impacts on innovation. [1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/12/232893-point-should-ai-technology-be-regulated/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/12/232893-point-should-a...

marcinzm 8y ago

>but um now we need governments to stop us, please? I read it more like: "we now need governments to stop our competition by creating a much higher barrier to entry than we had to deal with."