3 ms·

Okay sure let’s take your “bad character” version: of course this is being done. Someone already linked to a commercially available version of it for shoplifter

Okay sure let’s take your “bad character” version: of course this is being done. Someone already linked to a commercially available version of it for shoplifters. Of course this type of technology was used to identify protestors in Hong Kong. It was probably also used to identify Jan 6’ers. And in fact you yourself already hedged that this probably is happening, “ But I doubt many people are trying this, except as a way to justify a marketing budget.” Aka you believe that at least some people are already attempting this.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> Aka you believe that at least some people are already attempting this. This is getting painfully repetitious, but that was about facial recognition, not deciding if someone's a liar or is of bad character via AI. > Identifying protesters isn't the same as an AI filming you and deciding if you are of bad character. Same comment.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Got it so we agree facial recognition will be dramatically amped up; we agree AI-based polygraphing will exist; you don’t think AI-identify-bad-intentions-button exists currently and therefore we are supposed to doubt that AI is a major surveillance hazard. Am I reading this right now?
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > so we agree facial recognition will be dramatically amped up It may be. Not that it will be. > we agree AI-based polygraphing will exist We didn't mention lie detecting, but no - I was saying liar detection, which was the thing from the article, also sounds like fear-mongering. > you don’t think AI-identify-bad-intentions-button exists currently Yes. > therefore we are supposed to doubt that AI is a major surveillance hazard No, that's a category error. "Major" and "hazard" are far too vague to decide upon. Will AI be used in surveillance in some capacity? Of course - it likely has been for decades, depending on how you define AI. But implying that you'll walk into a shop and be classified as a liar based on a video feed is not right. I understand websites need emotion for clicks, but I don't think it's right to do it this way.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> Aka you believe that at least some people are already attempting this. This is getting painfully repetitious, but that was about facial recognition, not deciding if someone's a liar or is of bad character via AI. > Identifying protesters isn't the same as an AI filming you and deciding if you are of bad character. Same comment.

ethanbond 3y ago
Got it so we agree facial recognition will be dramatically amped up; we agree AI-based polygraphing will exist; you don’t think AI-identify-bad-intentions-button exists currently and therefore we are supposed to doubt that AI is a major surveillance hazard. Am I reading this right now?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > so we agree facial recognition will be dramatically amped up It may be. Not that it will be. > we agree AI-based polygraphing will exist We didn't mention lie detecting, but no - I was saying liar detection, which was the thing from the article, also sounds like fear-mongering. > you don’t think AI-identify-bad-intentions-button exists currently Yes. > therefore we are supposed to doubt that AI is a major surveillance hazard No, that's a category error. "Major" and "hazard" are far too vague to decide upon. Will AI be used in surveillance in some capacity? Of course - it likely has been for decades, depending on how you define AI. But implying that you'll walk into a shop and be classified as a liar based on a video feed is not right. I understand websites need emotion for clicks, but I don't think it's right to do it this way.