4 ms·

In theory (and in practice today), I’m strongly against this. However, I see a future where you will have to choose between mass surveillance or something close

In theory (and in practice today), I’m strongly against this. However, I see a future where you will have to choose between mass surveillance or something close to extinction. I might be wrong, but as technology progress, it seems almost inevitable that a single individual can do more and more damage. An amount of damage it took half an army to achieve a couple of hundred years ago, one individual can do today with the help of a bomb, a plane or a machine gun. What happens the day that a few number of individuals can build a super virus (already possible for a few, but it will become more common), nuclear bomb or, heck, create a black hole in their basement? If that day comes, it doesn’t matter how strongly I hold the principle that everybody should have the right to privacy; I will gladly welcome our new AI surveillance overlords just to stay alive.

thatguy0900 4y ago
I mean, just based on evidence it seems like not many people are that crazy, and the ones who are are not in the state of mind for very well made plans. Already it would be easy to strap a pipe bomb with sharapnel to a drone and blow it up anywhere, but that hasnt happened. https://www.boredpanda.com/story-radioactive-boy-scout-david-hahn/ https://www.boredpanda.com/story-radioactive-boy-scout-david... most everything is really doable if you want to cause some damage. i think any ai surveillance overlord will be only on the premise of danger and it will be very overblown
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I am close to a similar conclusion. Sufficiently determined individual can already do a lot of damage using easily accessible tools. Without looking very far, I can point to 'car attacks' in Canada or London. And despite that ease of access to a tool of mass death, despite clear polarization of societies to near hysterical levels, actual crazies appear to make a small fraction of the population; a very visible fraction thanks to the media exposure, but a fraction nonetheless. Most people appear to want one thing: that the day ahead of them is just like the day before.
unethical_ban 4y ago
Yes. This kind of scenario is really frightening. It's why we need to expand colonies off world. There isn't much to add except that I've had the exact same thought several times before.
- rl3 4y ago
  >It's why we need to expand colonies off world. If the technology in question that's gone awry due to a single rogue individual is AGI, it'd easily kick our ass across the cosmos if malevolent. There's very likely no running from it. The point at which it becomes possible for a single person to create something like that, is the point where we'd such need a system of control lest we face extinction as a species. Fortunately, said system of control would likely have to be implemented with AI anyways, and stands a good chance of being done correctly such that it doesn't infringe on individual freedom or human rights whatsoever. One of my favorite things to ponder is the notion of a superintelligence created to protect us that renders itself invisible. A diety of our own creation as intangible and mythological as those found in historical scriptures.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
An evil individual can easily defeat mass surveillance, because there is inherent asymmetry in encryption. She can encrypt her evil messages with, say, 6-words passphrase that no government would be able to crack no matter how many billions of dollars they throw at the task. Mass surveillance only works against innocents and low-wit criminals.
- GaylordTuring 4y ago
  Yeah, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I’m talking about surveillance on the level of sticking a camera down your toilet and putting you in jail for even thinking that you could send an encrypted message to somebody.
csomar 4y ago
So you are saying this evil group can create and spread a super virus; but can't figure out how to secure their devices against these government mass surveillance techniques?
- GaylordTuring 4y ago
  My thoughts wasn’t particularly related to this suggestion. As I said, I’m against it. I’m talking about more or less watching your every move maybe even to the point of not letting you communicate with other human beings at all. Alternatively, we can all be held in some kind of future zoo where we only have access to technology pre Turing machines.

thatguy0900 4y ago

I mean, just based on evidence it seems like not many people are that crazy, and the ones who are are not in the state of mind for very well made plans. Already it would be easy to strap a pipe bomb with sharapnel to a drone and blow it up anywhere, but that hasnt happened. https://www.boredpanda.com/story-radioactive-boy-scout-david-hahn/ https://www.boredpanda.com/story-radioactive-boy-scout-david... most everything is really doable if you want to cause some damage. i think any ai surveillance overlord will be only on the premise of danger and it will be very overblown

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I am close to a similar conclusion. Sufficiently determined individual can already do a lot of damage using easily accessible tools. Without looking very far, I can point to 'car attacks' in Canada or London. And despite that ease of access to a tool of mass death, despite clear polarization of societies to near hysterical levels, actual crazies appear to make a small fraction of the population; a very visible fraction thanks to the media exposure, but a fraction nonetheless. Most people appear to want one thing: that the day ahead of them is just like the day before.

unethical_ban 4y ago

Yes. This kind of scenario is really frightening. It's why we need to expand colonies off world. There isn't much to add except that I've had the exact same thought several times before.

rl3 4y ago
>It's why we need to expand colonies off world. If the technology in question that's gone awry due to a single rogue individual is AGI, it'd easily kick our ass across the cosmos if malevolent. There's very likely no running from it. The point at which it becomes possible for a single person to create something like that, is the point where we'd such need a system of control lest we face extinction as a species. Fortunately, said system of control would likely have to be implemented with AI anyways, and stands a good chance of being done correctly such that it doesn't infringe on individual freedom or human rights whatsoever. One of my favorite things to ponder is the notion of a superintelligence created to protect us that renders itself invisible. A diety of our own creation as intangible and mythological as those found in historical scriptures.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago

An evil individual can easily defeat mass surveillance, because there is inherent asymmetry in encryption. She can encrypt her evil messages with, say, 6-words passphrase that no government would be able to crack no matter how many billions of dollars they throw at the task. Mass surveillance only works against innocents and low-wit criminals.

GaylordTuring 4y ago
Yeah, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. I’m talking about surveillance on the level of sticking a camera down your toilet and putting you in jail for even thinking that you could send an encrypted message to somebody.

csomar 4y ago

So you are saying this evil group can create and spread a super virus; but can't figure out how to secure their devices against these government mass surveillance techniques?

GaylordTuring 4y ago
My thoughts wasn’t particularly related to this suggestion. As I said, I’m against it. I’m talking about more or less watching your every move maybe even to the point of not letting you communicate with other human beings at all. Alternatively, we can all be held in some kind of future zoo where we only have access to technology pre Turing machines.