5 ms·

I don't think it's really about the AI at all. The article mentioned a live feed which the AI activates so that your can be berated by a real-live person. From

by Lendal 6y ago

I don't think it's really about the AI at all. The article mentioned a live feed which the AI activates so that your can be berated by a real-live person. From personal experience, I feel like that's what the quitting is truly about. I have quit a job before over surveillance cameras but that was back in 1980's, long before AI. The work environment there was oppressive, and not just due to the surveillance cameras. The business failed a few years later. I wasn't surprised. Blame was placed on external factors, but anyone who attempted to worked there knew it was due to the oppressive management style, of which surveillance cameras was just a tool. If this program fails, management will blame it on a failure of AI, because that is their character. But we all know that it's easy to place blame on something that can't fight back.

tomhoward 6y ago
> berated Where did it say "berated"?. Outside of the stance "I've already decided I distrust anything Amazon does", what facts do we have that this "live feed" is anything more then a welfare checkin to make sure the driver is OK, or something else non-malicious and sincerely focused on safety? And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action?
- bostonsre 6y ago
  > And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action? They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators. At this point the workers don't trust what Amazon says. The cameras will be viewed by workers with mistrust and they will assume they are being watched constantly and the "safety" purpose is bs. Amazon probably knows this, even if they intend it to actually be used for safety. This is the same reason some convenience stores put up fake cameras. They are a beurocratic organization with middle managers doing everything they can to squeeze productivity gains out everything and every one. There may be some good guys in there but those good guys don't have their careers grow. The managers without morals rise to the top while shit rolls down hill and the guys on the bottom get worse and worse treatment.
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    > They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators That makes no sense. Deeply/continually unhappy workers are less productive, especially if they leave. And action from regulators is bad for productivity, especially when laws are enforced via court action/penalties or when new laws imposed. This line of commentary is just-so narrative to uphold the position that everything Amazon does is evil. But it doesn't demonstrate that Amazon actually has the incentive to do said evil things.
    - Arainach 6y ago
      Amazon measures all of the numbers and fires its "less productive" workers. There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people, so they have a constant stream of people to work as fast as physically possible until they burn out. This is baked into their entire philosophy - it applies to warehouse workers, drivers, and software engineers.
      - tomhoward 6y ago
        "There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people" There is such a thing as government-mandated conditions in most places even in the US (I'm not from the US but I'm not that stupid), and even if not, at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment. This commentary is just-so narrative, not serious discussion. I'm bouncing out for some sleep, thanks.
        imagica 6y ago
        > There is such a thing as government-mandated conditions in most places even in the US ( Government-mandated conditions are on paper only, are often abused and the boundaries are always stretched out to the breaking point. > at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment. You're underestimating the amount of rampant poverty and unemployment without benefits in the US. You're un
- rapnie 6y ago
  > But I just don't see the cause for outrage over this - as long as the system really is focused on the safety of drivers and other road users. > The reference to AI in the article makes it sound dystopian, but isn't this potentially better, if it just means that computation is used to detect any issues rather than having humans watching their fellow workers? > [..] what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this What Amazon (and others doing similar stuff) does is create something of a Panopticon [0] to enforce proper behavior: > Although it is physically impossible for the single guard to observe all the inmates' cells at once, the fact that the inmates cannot know when they are being watched means that they are motivated to act as though they are being watched at all times. Thus, the inmates are effectively compelled to regulate their own behaviour. > In 1965 the conservative historian Shirley Robin [..] argued that Bentham's pet gadget, the panopticon prison, was a device of such monstrous efficiency that it left no room for humanity. > Recent Libertarian thinkers began to regard Bentham's entire philosophy as having paved the way for totalitarian states. In this regard, as with the Panopticon, it doesn't even matter if the camera's work or there's AI involved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon
whoknew1122 6y ago
I'm not sure we read the same article. The linked article said two things: > 'The system then uses "automated verbal alerts" to tell drivers if a violation has been detected.' 'Automated verbal alert' is the exact opposite of a real-live person. The article further says: > 'Amazon told Insider in February driver footage was not automatically available to Amazon and that the "live feed" was triggered only after the detection of a safety or policy violation.' So where are you getting 'berated by a real-live person?'
- ec109685 6y ago
  Doesn’t the live feed being triggered after the detection of a safety or policy violation, allow them to be berated by a real-live person?
  - whoknew1122 6y ago
    Berate is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The live feed being triggered allows Amazon to have access to the footage, yes. It may be something their manager may talk to them about. But there's absolutely no evidence that this system allows someone to remote in and yell: "No yawning on the job. Get back to work, serf." And no one has defined berate here. Let's imagine that the system allows real-time chatting between someone at Amazon HQ and the driver, despite no evidence of this. But we'll pretend. If driver is breaking the speed limit, not wearing their seat-belt, or participating in other unsafe behavior, they're putting both the public and Amazon at risk. It's entirely reasonable for Amazon to detect a driver speeding in a residential neighborhood, and be able to communicate with that driver in real time to ensure they're driving at safe speeds for the area.
LinuxBender 6y ago
Agreed. I would add that all of my cheap stand alone GPS devices have had this capability for a long time without the need of AI or network connectivity. They give an audible warning that I am in a school zone or going too fast for where I am. The school alert was enabled by default on two models and the speed limit warning had to be enabled. I have a heavy foot. I would never work for someone that has to watch me on camera, unless of course being on camera was my job.

by Lendal 6y ago

tomhoward 6y ago

> berated Where did it say "berated"?. Outside of the stance "I've already decided I distrust anything Amazon does", what facts do we have that this "live feed" is anything more then a welfare checkin to make sure the driver is OK, or something else non-malicious and sincerely focused on safety? And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action?

bostonsre 6y ago
> And as I posed in another comment, what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this, given that if it really does lead to more privacy intrusions, many more staff will quit and regulators would take action? They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators. At this point the workers don't trust what Amazon says. The cameras will be viewed by workers with mistrust and they will assume they are being watched constantly and the "safety" purpose is bs. Amazon probably knows this, even if they intend it to actually be used for safety. This is the same reason some convenience stores put up fake cameras. They are a beurocratic organization with middle managers doing everything they can to squeeze productivity gains out everything and every one. There may be some good guys in there but those good guys don't have their careers grow. The managers without morals rise to the top while shit rolls down hill and the guys on the bottom get worse and worse treatment.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  > They could have calculated that productivity increases due to the nanny cam were worth any blowback from unhappy workers and regulators That makes no sense. Deeply/continually unhappy workers are less productive, especially if they leave. And action from regulators is bad for productivity, especially when laws are enforced via court action/penalties or when new laws imposed. This line of commentary is just-so narrative to uphold the position that everything Amazon does is evil. But it doesn't demonstrate that Amazon actually has the incentive to do said evil things.
  - Arainach 6y ago
    Amazon measures all of the numbers and fires its "less productive" workers. There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people, so they have a constant stream of people to work as fast as physically possible until they burn out. This is baked into their entire philosophy - it applies to warehouse workers, drivers, and software engineers.
    - tomhoward 6y ago
      "There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people" There is such a thing as government-mandated conditions in most places even in the US (I'm not from the US but I'm not that stupid), and even if not, at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment. This commentary is just-so narrative, not serious discussion. I'm bouncing out for some sleep, thanks.
      - imagica 6y ago
        > There is such a thing as government-mandated conditions in most places even in the US ( Government-mandated conditions are on paper only, are often abused and the boundaries are always stretched out to the breaking point. > at a certain point people are better off doing nothing than being so badly abused, and there is always a better option below a certain level of mistreatment. You're underestimating the amount of rampant poverty and unemployment without benefits in the US. You're un
rapnie 6y ago
> But I just don't see the cause for outrage over this - as long as the system really is focused on the safety of drivers and other road users. > The reference to AI in the article makes it sound dystopian, but isn't this potentially better, if it just means that computation is used to detect any issues rather than having humans watching their fellow workers? > [..] what incentive does Amazon have for it to be anything other than this What Amazon (and others doing similar stuff) does is create something of a Panopticon [0] to enforce proper behavior: > Although it is physically impossible for the single guard to observe all the inmates' cells at once, the fact that the inmates cannot know when they are being watched means that they are motivated to act as though they are being watched at all times. Thus, the inmates are effectively compelled to regulate their own behaviour. > In 1965 the conservative historian Shirley Robin [..] argued that Bentham's pet gadget, the panopticon prison, was a device of such monstrous efficiency that it left no room for humanity. > Recent Libertarian thinkers began to regard Bentham's entire philosophy as having paved the way for totalitarian states. In this regard, as with the Panopticon, it doesn't even matter if the camera's work or there's AI involved. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

whoknew1122 6y ago

I'm not sure we read the same article. The linked article said two things: > 'The system then uses "automated verbal alerts" to tell drivers if a violation has been detected.' 'Automated verbal alert' is the exact opposite of a real-live person. The article further says: > 'Amazon told Insider in February driver footage was not automatically available to Amazon and that the "live feed" was triggered only after the detection of a safety or policy violation.' So where are you getting 'berated by a real-live person?'

ec109685 6y ago
Doesn’t the live feed being triggered after the detection of a safety or policy violation, allow them to be berated by a real-live person?
- whoknew1122 6y ago
  Berate is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. The live feed being triggered allows Amazon to have access to the footage, yes. It may be something their manager may talk to them about. But there's absolutely no evidence that this system allows someone to remote in and yell: "No yawning on the job. Get back to work, serf." And no one has defined berate here. Let's imagine that the system allows real-time chatting between someone at Amazon HQ and the driver, despite no evidence of this. But we'll pretend. If driver is breaking the speed limit, not wearing their seat-belt, or participating in other unsafe behavior, they're putting both the public and Amazon at risk. It's entirely reasonable for Amazon to detect a driver speeding in a residential neighborhood, and be able to communicate with that driver in real time to ensure they're driving at safe speeds for the area.

LinuxBender 6y ago

Agreed. I would add that all of my cheap stand alone GPS devices have had this capability for a long time without the need of AI or network connectivity. They give an audible warning that I am in a school zone or going too fast for where I am. The school alert was enabled by default on two models and the speed limit warning had to be enabled. I have a heavy foot. I would never work for someone that has to watch me on camera, unless of course being on camera was my job.