4 ms·

Yuck. It's like the perfect marriage of taking any remaining humanity out of law enforcement and add tons of bottomless greed to it. It's so very Peter Thiel-is

by atonse 7y ago

Yuck. It's like the perfect marriage of taking any remaining humanity out of law enforcement and add tons of bottomless greed to it. It's so very Peter Thiel-ish. I'd love to say I wish them well, but I hope this company goes out of business due to a public outrage. But they'll always find someone to sell to, like authoritarian governments, and make money hand-over-fist.

golemiprague 7y ago
Yeah, also when they took away the sword and replaced it with a gun it was so much less "humane", you lost all connection with the person you kill, how horrible. Just admit it, you don't like it because it goes against your politics, you don't want an effective immigration control for whatever reason. If it was you who had to use this technology to protect your house for example you wouldn't have any problem.
voodoomagicman 7y ago
I hope everyone involved with this company dies painfully
- dang 7y ago
  You can't post like this here regardless of how strongly you disagree with someone or dislike them. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and using HN as intended? They include Be kind. That includes being kind even when others are not being kind. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
zootam 7y ago
>It's so very Peter Thiel-ish. soon, all of the United State's defense companies will be named after stuff from Lord of the Rings
- ENGNR 7y ago
  I bet they get angry every night over not owning ‘ring’ itself, it even plugs directly into law enforcement
- cpeterso 7y ago
  Reference: Andúril is the name of Aragorn's sword from Lord of the Rings. Stephen Colbert owns one of the prop swords from the films. https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/And%C3%BAril https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/And%C3%BAril
codesushi42 7y ago
Seconded. Of course it would be Palmer Lucky and Peter Thiel who would "pioneer" a company that builds surveillance state technology. Of course they would.
nudpiedo 7y ago
From your words I understand you don’t see compatible border patrol or border control with “humanity” and nothing said will change your mind. Are you aware of any country without any border control laws or laws to regulate the movements of people? I am only aware of countries who cannot enforce their own laws, and for sure I am for sure not speaking about international agreements between countries which is a total different topic.
- atonse 7y ago
  I said it takes the humanity out if it. I am not, nor have I ever been against, having a border patrol. You’re putting words in my internet mouth. It’s how you approach the idea of border patrol. I don’t know the ratios but border enforcement probably splits their time between smugglers of things and smugglers of people (or just Individuals crossing). This fully AI based border-patrol system could work well if you see the border patrol problem as a "bringing shit in that we never want, under any circumstance" scenario, so for drugs this could work well. (although it'll just be yet another cat and mouse game, with the AI taking even longer to learn) But the other side of the coin is the people side. It's more complicated. With people, it isn't just "we never want, under any circumstances" – there are many questions to be asked. We want to apprehend the actual smugglers for trafficking people, even if we want to deport the actual migrants, we want to properly file them, make sure they aren't malnourished, and send them back safely. Is an AI going to do all that? No. That's the problem with this solution. I'm sorry that this doesn't fit into a binary view of "he must hate this totally AI border control, so he must be for open borders!"
  - nudpiedo 7y ago
    Binary view? Hate? what are you speaking about? I am just pointing to you the fact that you are mixing current politics with a principle of law and order which derived from any civilization. The conclusions you extract from it are all yours. You should listen Palmer's interview in the podcast someone suggested in this entry. There is no humanity in the security arc or control of any airport, or in the form of any bureau and, even if there is a lot of margin for improvement, and there are methods effective than others, I do not believe that by denying these "control elements" their role and purpose will just fade away as if the civilization never needed them in the first place. As soon as you recognize we need to have these controls in place, why not make them more effective? The humanity towards infractors of a bureaucratic process is regulated in a separate term, and it should not be left to a physical exam to the ones who can skip a control. And regarding humanity, these methods do not imply the judgement of a human person on individuals, it just will multiply the effectiveness. As said I did not want to get into the current political discussions on the topic, just to remark that these things exist because they are necessary and negating them is negating the reality of the world.
zelly 7y ago
I say it's Thielish because it's an extremely audience-focused business without much competition because potential competitors are ideologically opposed to entering the market. Something else like this which comes to mind is gene editing or designer babies as a service, but this would have the opposite level of support from the current government regime.

by atonse 7y ago

golemiprague 7y ago

Yeah, also when they took away the sword and replaced it with a gun it was so much less "humane", you lost all connection with the person you kill, how horrible. Just admit it, you don't like it because it goes against your politics, you don't want an effective immigration control for whatever reason. If it was you who had to use this technology to protect your house for example you wouldn't have any problem.

voodoomagicman 7y ago

I hope everyone involved with this company dies painfully

dang 7y ago
You can't post like this here regardless of how strongly you disagree with someone or dislike them. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and using HN as intended? They include Be kind. That includes being kind even when others are not being kind. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

zootam 7y ago

>It's so very Peter Thiel-ish. soon, all of the United State's defense companies will be named after stuff from Lord of the Rings

ENGNR 7y ago
I bet they get angry every night over not owning ‘ring’ itself, it even plugs directly into law enforcement
cpeterso 7y ago
Reference: Andúril is the name of Aragorn's sword from Lord of the Rings. Stephen Colbert owns one of the prop swords from the films. https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/And%C3%BAril https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/And%C3%BAril

codesushi42 7y ago

Seconded. Of course it would be Palmer Lucky and Peter Thiel who would "pioneer" a company that builds surveillance state technology. Of course they would.

nudpiedo 7y ago

From your words I understand you don’t see compatible border patrol or border control with “humanity” and nothing said will change your mind. Are you aware of any country without any border control laws or laws to regulate the movements of people? I am only aware of countries who cannot enforce their own laws, and for sure I am for sure not speaking about international agreements between countries which is a total different topic.

atonse 7y ago
I said it takes the humanity out if it. I am not, nor have I ever been against, having a border patrol. You’re putting words in my internet mouth. It’s how you approach the idea of border patrol. I don’t know the ratios but border enforcement probably splits their time between smugglers of things and smugglers of people (or just Individuals crossing). This fully AI based border-patrol system could work well if you see the border patrol problem as a "bringing shit in that we never want, under any circumstance" scenario, so for drugs this could work well. (although it'll just be yet another cat and mouse game, with the AI taking even longer to learn) But the other side of the coin is the people side. It's more complicated. With people, it isn't just "we never want, under any circumstances" – there are many questions to be asked. We want to apprehend the actual smugglers for trafficking people, even if we want to deport the actual migrants, we want to properly file them, make sure they aren't malnourished, and send them back safely. Is an AI going to do all that? No. That's the problem with this solution. I'm sorry that this doesn't fit into a binary view of "he must hate this totally AI border control, so he must be for open borders!"
- nudpiedo 7y ago
  Binary view? Hate? what are you speaking about? I am just pointing to you the fact that you are mixing current politics with a principle of law and order which derived from any civilization. The conclusions you extract from it are all yours. You should listen Palmer's interview in the podcast someone suggested in this entry. There is no humanity in the security arc or control of any airport, or in the form of any bureau and, even if there is a lot of margin for improvement, and there are methods effective than others, I do not believe that by denying these "control elements" their role and purpose will just fade away as if the civilization never needed them in the first place. As soon as you recognize we need to have these controls in place, why not make them more effective? The humanity towards infractors of a bureaucratic process is regulated in a separate term, and it should not be left to a physical exam to the ones who can skip a control. And regarding humanity, these methods do not imply the judgement of a human person on individuals, it just will multiply the effectiveness. As said I did not want to get into the current political discussions on the topic, just to remark that these things exist because they are necessary and negating them is negating the reality of the world.

zelly 7y ago

I say it's Thielish because it's an extremely audience-focused business without much competition because potential competitors are ideologically opposed to entering the market. Something else like this which comes to mind is gene editing or designer babies as a service, but this would have the opposite level of support from the current government regime.