7 ms·

All roads of AI are converging on the end of privacy. A free society does not exist in the absence of privacy. When you lose privacy you lose ownership over yo

All roads of AI are converging on the end of privacy. A free society does not exist in the absence of privacy. When you lose privacy you lose ownership over your own thoughts. You lose agency over the direction of your own life. Humanity suffers by either scenario, either by our own agency in control of power we are not prepared to manage or we will be managed by power that we can not control. Many have their focus looking forward to the unknown concerns of AGI; however, these other issues are already nearly imminent and are far less present in discourse around AI. The impacts on socialization and society in general from AI performing exactly as we have requested it may be one of the greatest threats. I've written quite a bit on that aspect, FYI - https://dakara.substack.com/p/artificial-intelligence-ai-ends-in https://dakara.substack.com/p/artificial-intelligence-ai-end...

stickfigure 3y ago
You have to physically climb into an multimillion dollar, 10 ton, liquid-helium-cooled machine and spend hours training it on your brain. We're a long way from the end of private thought, nor is there a roadmap to it. If someone is working on a handheld device that can perform MRI-level scans from across the room, I would be worried about the privacy implications of that technology, not AI.
- cma 3y ago
  Liquid helium wouldn't be a barrier to being used on key individuals (say leaders of opposition parties in some large authoritarian-ish country). The training would be if it requires cooperation.
- 13years 3y ago
  That is missing the point. It is the trajectory. Machines that can analyze all orthogonal data to understand your behavior is not limited to a single dimension of a MRI machine. Facial expression analysis, all of your online conversations, the existence of your entire life is being monitored and recorded. There will be enough data to perceive beyond the veil into the thoughts of the mind.
  - rcme 3y ago
    This is the plot of the show Person of Interest.
    - ldhough 3y ago
      This was always one of my favorite shows. For (what started as) a police procedural, it was incredibly prescient in many ways.
      - freedomben 3y ago
        Yep, terrific show. For the tech person there are a few cringe things but overall it's pretty awewsome and highly recommend.
  - coding123 3y ago
    It is definitely missing the point - capturing of brain waves does not require liquid cooling etc. In fact it's something that could theoretically be squeezed into the next Meta Quest to just "capture". Then it would just be stored until they are ready with an airflow pipeline to pass it into the nn.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      During the pandemic, I built a device that records "brain waves". Not with the fidelity that would be needed to be a useful medical instrument -- let alone read minds -- but the fact that I, a fairly average geek, can do so using my own equipment and for less than $100 seems meaningful. The device itself is very small, battery-powered (for safety) and requires that you attach electrodes to your scalp.
    - stickfigure 3y ago
      EEG != MRI. Nobody claims to be able to read your thoughts via EEG.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
- bookofjoe 3y ago
  >Wearable MRI helmet makes brain scans quicker, quieter and crisper https://healthimaging.com/topics/medical-imaging/magnetic-resonance-imaging-mri/wearable-mri-helmet https://healthimaging.com/topics/medical-imaging/magnetic-re... >Auxetics-Inspired Tunable Metamaterials for Magnetic Resonance Imaging https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.202109032 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.202109032
- waboremo 3y ago
  You have to lug around a giant bulky laptop and you can't even call people on it! We're a long way from mobile computing. Anyways, even given current limitations, I'd likely side with the very researchers working on such. They explicitly highlight privacy reasons as a serious concern. Going out of their way to highlight misuse through bypassing requirements (cooperation of subject) and intentionally misinterpreting for nefarious reasons.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    One thing that history teaches is that there are always people who will misuse technology for personal gain and to influence or control other people. Always. Human nature hasn't changed.
  - porkbeer 3y ago
    Everything gets smaller, computers are no longer "bulky".
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      That was their point.
- mock-possum 3y ago
  > You have to physically climb into an multimillion dollar, 10 ton, liquid-helium-cooled machine and spend hours training it on your brain the article suggests it could be accomplished with a neurosurgical implant as well - and which, honestly, if I could transcribe my thoughts to review later, I'd love to try that out. In which case, the question of security moves to the matter of accessing the implant.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I'd consider that as well! But only if I had complete control over the implant and what interacts with it, and after Version 3.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  You do now. But if you are arrested, you can be compelled to do that, and in a few years EEG skullcaps will probably be sufficient. Honestly, it baffles me that so many people on a site devoted to technology evaluate long-term trends based on current capabilities. Capacity is going to continue to double every ~2 years. If we can't make transistors 2x smaller, we'll find a different architecture to make transistor arrays 2x larger, or [something]. Technical progress compounds. It's often lumpy rather than linear, but it's going to keep imposing an accelerating effect wherever people see profit in applying it.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  Just wait until we get the musk nuralink chip which will eventually be mandated to prevent terrorism and misinformation.
mdp2021 3y ago
> A free society It is not just that. The mandate to privacy is anterior (and ancient), in terms of "do not expose yourself to the judgement of the ignorant".
deet 3y ago
Loss of agency is a deeply profound concern that is not discussed enough. So much of human life is tied to the reward of the sense of accomplishment, and AI threatens that in a meaningful way. From large things, like seeing a piece of software you built ship and get used, or seeing your child graduate from college after years of hard work raising them, to the small things, like even eating a delicious meal you cooked yourself. When machines are not only offering to solve problems and perform actions for us, but are reading are thoughts and doing everything for us before we even make an attempt, I worry that sense of accomplishment will become ever less frequent. And while we can compensate for machines taking jobs through, eg, universal basic income or the like, how we can solve for machines replacing struggle, perseverance, and accomplishment is still very much TBD.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  Yeah but can I get one of those lawn mowing robots so I can instead feel accomplished by my guitar playing?
  - krono 3y ago
    The type of decisions those chore-bots make are rather inconsequential, whereas the ones that will decide which digital content you can trust or whether its something you shouldn't want to see could get very nasty. This latter type is already heading our way and I posted a comment about it a few days ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35850279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35850279
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    I got an Automower this year and it's been one of the best purchases I ever made. I have multiple hours per month of my life back. Though I have more grass than I'd like.
- 13years 3y ago
  Indeed, this is one of the major topics I focused on in the referenced article. "AI brings into question who is really the creator. Am I the creator if I simply role the dice until I win the lottery? When I regenerate a new response over and over until finally getting the image or output I most desire? When the output is the final product, is AI still just a tool? Or are we simply observers foolishly convincing ourselves of the value of our contribution?"
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Privacy is gray and there has never been absolute privacy. For example, if I go somewhere in public then people see me. I should not expect my location to be private.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > if I go somewhere in public then people see me. I should not expect my location to be private. If that's the case, then we have almost no meaningful privacy. Fortunately, that doesn't have to be the case. If I go out in public, people can see me, sure. But the odds of any of those people knowing who I am are miniscule. To them, I'm just another body in the bulk of bodies that populate their landscape. My privacy is retained. It's when cameras are everywhere, recording everyone they see, when we carry devices that report our locations to others, etc., and that data is correlated with other data, that privacy is compromised.
piloto_ciego 3y ago
Only if we let it. But we will need to explore options other than “continue with the status quo” before that comes along.

stickfigure 3y ago

You have to physically climb into an multimillion dollar, 10 ton, liquid-helium-cooled machine and spend hours training it on your brain. We're a long way from the end of private thought, nor is there a roadmap to it. If someone is working on a handheld device that can perform MRI-level scans from across the room, I would be worried about the privacy implications of that technology, not AI.

cma 3y ago
Liquid helium wouldn't be a barrier to being used on key individuals (say leaders of opposition parties in some large authoritarian-ish country). The training would be if it requires cooperation.
13years 3y ago
That is missing the point. It is the trajectory. Machines that can analyze all orthogonal data to understand your behavior is not limited to a single dimension of a MRI machine. Facial expression analysis, all of your online conversations, the existence of your entire life is being monitored and recorded. There will be enough data to perceive beyond the veil into the thoughts of the mind.
- rcme 3y ago
  This is the plot of the show Person of Interest.
  - ldhough 3y ago
    This was always one of my favorite shows. For (what started as) a police procedural, it was incredibly prescient in many ways.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Yep, terrific show. For the tech person there are a few cringe things but overall it's pretty awewsome and highly recommend.
- coding123 3y ago
  It is definitely missing the point - capturing of brain waves does not require liquid cooling etc. In fact it's something that could theoretically be squeezed into the next Meta Quest to just "capture". Then it would just be stored until they are ready with an airflow pipeline to pass it into the nn.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    During the pandemic, I built a device that records "brain waves". Not with the fidelity that would be needed to be a useful medical instrument -- let alone read minds -- but the fact that I, a fairly average geek, can do so using my own equipment and for less than $100 seems meaningful. The device itself is very small, battery-powered (for safety) and requires that you attach electrodes to your scalp.
  - stickfigure 3y ago
    EEG != MRI. Nobody claims to be able to read your thoughts via EEG.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
bookofjoe 3y ago
>Wearable MRI helmet makes brain scans quicker, quieter and crisper https://healthimaging.com/topics/medical-imaging/magnetic-resonance-imaging-mri/wearable-mri-helmet https://healthimaging.com/topics/medical-imaging/magnetic-re... >Auxetics-Inspired Tunable Metamaterials for Magnetic Resonance Imaging https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.202109032 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.202109032
waboremo 3y ago
You have to lug around a giant bulky laptop and you can't even call people on it! We're a long way from mobile computing. Anyways, even given current limitations, I'd likely side with the very researchers working on such. They explicitly highlight privacy reasons as a serious concern. Going out of their way to highlight misuse through bypassing requirements (cooperation of subject) and intentionally misinterpreting for nefarious reasons.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  One thing that history teaches is that there are always people who will misuse technology for personal gain and to influence or control other people. Always. Human nature hasn't changed.
- porkbeer 3y ago
  Everything gets smaller, computers are no longer "bulky".
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    That was their point.
mock-possum 3y ago
> You have to physically climb into an multimillion dollar, 10 ton, liquid-helium-cooled machine and spend hours training it on your brain the article suggests it could be accomplished with a neurosurgical implant as well - and which, honestly, if I could transcribe my thoughts to review later, I'd love to try that out. In which case, the question of security moves to the matter of accessing the implant.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I'd consider that as well! But only if I had complete control over the implant and what interacts with it, and after Version 3.
anigbrowl 3y ago
You do now. But if you are arrested, you can be compelled to do that, and in a few years EEG skullcaps will probably be sufficient. Honestly, it baffles me that so many people on a site devoted to technology evaluate long-term trends based on current capabilities. Capacity is going to continue to double every ~2 years. If we can't make transistors 2x smaller, we'll find a different architecture to make transistor arrays 2x larger, or [something]. Technical progress compounds. It's often lumpy rather than linear, but it's going to keep imposing an accelerating effect wherever people see profit in applying it.
Gigachad 3y ago
Just wait until we get the musk nuralink chip which will eventually be mandated to prevent terrorism and misinformation.

mdp2021 3y ago

> A free society It is not just that. The mandate to privacy is anterior (and ancient), in terms of "do not expose yourself to the judgement of the ignorant".

deet 3y ago

Loss of agency is a deeply profound concern that is not discussed enough. So much of human life is tied to the reward of the sense of accomplishment, and AI threatens that in a meaningful way. From large things, like seeing a piece of software you built ship and get used, or seeing your child graduate from college after years of hard work raising them, to the small things, like even eating a delicious meal you cooked yourself. When machines are not only offering to solve problems and perform actions for us, but are reading are thoughts and doing everything for us before we even make an attempt, I worry that sense of accomplishment will become ever less frequent. And while we can compensate for machines taking jobs through, eg, universal basic income or the like, how we can solve for machines replacing struggle, perseverance, and accomplishment is still very much TBD.

williamcotton 3y ago
Yeah but can I get one of those lawn mowing robots so I can instead feel accomplished by my guitar playing?
- krono 3y ago
  The type of decisions those chore-bots make are rather inconsequential, whereas the ones that will decide which digital content you can trust or whether its something you shouldn't want to see could get very nasty. This latter type is already heading our way and I posted a comment about it a few days ago here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35850279 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35850279
- CalRobert 3y ago
  I got an Automower this year and it's been one of the best purchases I ever made. I have multiple hours per month of my life back. Though I have more grass than I'd like.
13years 3y ago
Indeed, this is one of the major topics I focused on in the referenced article. "AI brings into question who is really the creator. Am I the creator if I simply role the dice until I win the lottery? When I regenerate a new response over and over until finally getting the image or output I most desire? When the output is the final product, is AI still just a tool? Or are we simply observers foolishly convincing ourselves of the value of our contribution?"

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

Privacy is gray and there has never been absolute privacy. For example, if I go somewhere in public then people see me. I should not expect my location to be private.

JohnFen 3y ago
> if I go somewhere in public then people see me. I should not expect my location to be private. If that's the case, then we have almost no meaningful privacy. Fortunately, that doesn't have to be the case. If I go out in public, people can see me, sure. But the odds of any of those people knowing who I am are miniscule. To them, I'm just another body in the bulk of bodies that populate their landscape. My privacy is retained. It's when cameras are everywhere, recording everyone they see, when we carry devices that report our locations to others, etc., and that data is correlated with other data, that privacy is compromised.

piloto_ciego 3y ago

Only if we let it. But we will need to explore options other than “continue with the status quo” before that comes along.