3 ms·

I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. I can even train it locally on my own data if I want to. Hyperbole really serves no purpose when it's s

I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. I can even train it locally on my own data if I want to. Hyperbole really serves no purpose when it's so extreme. Instead of talking about the merits of "how can this technology be abused?" you're putting everyone else on the defensive, having to say "I'm not abusing it". Like, > AI is a way, I think, to entrench and expand the surveillance business model,” she said. “The Venn diagram is a circle.” No it isn't. If you want to say "facial recognition is a surveillance technology" OK. I find it deeply ironic that you then point out a use case where facial recognition is not used for surveillance and is actually protecting people (by blurring out faces) when you've just said that "The Venn diagram is a circle" but ok, at least the hyperbole is not so absurd if we limit it there. But then you just look like you're saying "AI" for headlines because yeah, we've been talking about facial recognition being surveillance technology for like 30 years or more... This article should have been reframed as something more like "The surveillance impacts of advanced AI techniques on Facial Recognition", to throw out a half assed attempt at a title/ rephrasing. The hyperbole should have been applied exclusively to surveillance applications, which is hardly polarizing by contrast, and the interesting bit would have been to hear about how AI factors in. Instead this was a puff piece with no real technical content, nothing interesting, and is practically a time piece from the early 2000s surveillance discussion with "AI" slapped onto the headline for clicks.

sealeck 3y ago
You can also turn your phone into a CCTV camera and yet a city where the state has 1 million surveillance cameras is qualitatively different to your homegrown back garden solution.
olalonde 3y ago
The term "surveillance business model" itself is a serious abuse of language. Surveillance is something done by states and police forces, usually to catch criminals or suppress dissent. People use it as a label for Google's business model simply because it has a negative connotation. It's a cheap tactic in my opinion.
- yakireev 3y ago
  If what Google does - closely observing us, collecting the data for further analysis, often without our knowledge or permission - is not surveillance, then what it is? Which word should we use to describe these activities?
  - olalonde 3y ago
    I would say a "data-driven business model". Google is not "closely observing us" in the sense that a policeman surveilles a criminal. And it's not without our knowledge or permission. Google won't learn much about you unless you volunteer the information. At worse, it might learn that a certain browser visited X or Y website (until the browser cookies are cleared). Plus, they collect data to improve their services and serve relevant ads, not to put people in jail.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      [dead]
- coldtea 3y ago
  >People use it as a label for Google's business model simply because it has a negative connotation This reads like parody. Let's say that states and police forces alone (for the sake of the argument) used to do surveillance. For the last 2 decades, Google, Facebook, and co ALSO collect data in 1000x the times the data breadth and detail than even Stazi was capable to collect, including collecting data covertly, and abuses it for all kinds of purposes, both aggregated and targeted. Not to mention that, beyond the surveillance they do for their private interests and business, even the "states and goverments" vs "Google and Facebook" are not even remotely separate from surveillance by states and police forces, cooperating, sharing data, or even ordered to give surveillance data, to both.
  - olalonde 3y ago
    What do you mean by abuse? Can you name one instance of someone's life being negatively impacted by Google's data collection? > Not to mention that, beyond the surveillance they do for their private interests and business, even the "states and goverments" vs "Google and Facebook" are not even remotely separate from surveillance by states and police forces, cooperating, sharing data, or even ordered to give surveillance data, to both. I'll grant you that, but I wouldn't call that their business. They probably would do without if they could.
rewmie 3y ago
> I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. I can even train it locally on my own data if I want to. Your poor take is so unrelated to the article that it suggests you didn't even bothered to read the article you're trying to criticize. It completely fails to even take into account the very basic premise presented in the article. It adds nothing to the discussion, and it reads as uninformed contrarian jabs. Please refrain from adding noise to an otherwise interesting discussion.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  I read the entire article. I literally quoted from it. Did you bother to read my entire comment? How about when you comment you follow HN guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > I read the entire article. I literally quoted from it. Did you bother to read my entire comment? I don't think you have. There is nothing in your comment that has any semblance of a relationship to the point made in the article you're supposedly commenting on. Here's a direct quote from the article: > “And the use of AI is also surveillant, right?” she continued. “You know, you walk past a facial recognition camera that’s instrumented with pseudo-scientific emotion recognition, and it produces data about you, right or wrong, that says ‘you are happy, you are sad, you have a bad character, you’re a liar, whatever.’ These are ultimately surveillance systems that are being marketed to those who have power over us generally: our employers, governments, border control, etc., to make determinations and predictions that will shape our access to resources and opportunities.” And here you are, posting inane non-sequitur comments on how it's possible to train models locally? No, you clearly did not read the article.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      > There is nothing in your comment that has You mean like me directly quoting parts of the article from both the beginning and end? Like me pointing out how the article talks about surveillance and then attempts to clumsily tie it to AI? Fuck off lol
coldtea 3y ago
>I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. Which is irrelevant if tens of thousands of other AIs, from entities with 4-5 orders of magnitude more times the resources and power over the economy/society/country than you use them for surveillance and to optimize to your detriment. The claim was never was about the logical or practical impossibility of AI to also be used otherwise. And facial recognition is just the tip of the iceberg of AI uses in surveillance. Nor is "blurring out faces" much consolation. What's blurred in, say, a public "Street View" service doesn't mean is also blurred on the same company's raw captured data. And the example wasn't about such cases, but about surveillance cameras anyway - which don't blur anything, just use the AI to identify targets. We should instead of arguing the point (and especially, the point at large), instead of nitpicking on the speaker's expression, while onstage, during a conference panel talk - as if those would be the best formulated and exhaustive.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  > The claim was never was about the logical or practical impossibility of AI to also be used otherwise. Well, yeah, it actually was the claim. It's literally the headline and I even quoted directly from the article where they say that there is literally 100% overlap between AI and surveillance. If you want to say "that was hyperbole", congrats, you've arrived at the premise of my comment.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Ever heard of nuance and context? >If you want to say "that was hyperbole", congrats, you've arrived at the premise of my comment. The premise of the comment was more like saying a headline like "WWII is deadly for Europe" is BS because Switzerland was just fine.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      I think I was pretty clear and reasonable about where I think hyperbole would have been appropriate and where I think it wasn't appropriate. Disagree if you'd like.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bavsinksc 3y ago
You've missed the point. AI is a surveillance technology because training it to a point of realistic usefulness requires enough data that you can't produce it yourself, without mass surveillance. Surveillance is the prerequisite, not the intended use. That's... not actually stated outright in the article, so I get the confusion. But it seems to me like it's the only logical explanation for what is stated.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  There's no link between "enough data that you can't produce it yourself" and "mass surveillance" unless perhaps in the context of face recognition. Training a language model on every book ever published does not involve surveillance in any way, and if someone takes all of the work of every graphic artist, that can be called by many names but surveillance isn't one of them.

sealeck 3y ago

You can also turn your phone into a CCTV camera and yet a city where the state has 1 million surveillance cameras is qualitatively different to your homegrown back garden solution.

olalonde 3y ago

The term "surveillance business model" itself is a serious abuse of language. Surveillance is something done by states and police forces, usually to catch criminals or suppress dissent. People use it as a label for Google's business model simply because it has a negative connotation. It's a cheap tactic in my opinion.

yakireev 3y ago
If what Google does - closely observing us, collecting the data for further analysis, often without our knowledge or permission - is not surveillance, then what it is? Which word should we use to describe these activities?
- olalonde 3y ago
  I would say a "data-driven business model". Google is not "closely observing us" in the sense that a policeman surveilles a criminal. And it's not without our knowledge or permission. Google won't learn much about you unless you volunteer the information. At worse, it might learn that a certain browser visited X or Y website (until the browser cookies are cleared). Plus, they collect data to improve their services and serve relevant ads, not to put people in jail.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    [dead]
coldtea 3y ago
>People use it as a label for Google's business model simply because it has a negative connotation This reads like parody. Let's say that states and police forces alone (for the sake of the argument) used to do surveillance. For the last 2 decades, Google, Facebook, and co ALSO collect data in 1000x the times the data breadth and detail than even Stazi was capable to collect, including collecting data covertly, and abuses it for all kinds of purposes, both aggregated and targeted. Not to mention that, beyond the surveillance they do for their private interests and business, even the "states and goverments" vs "Google and Facebook" are not even remotely separate from surveillance by states and police forces, cooperating, sharing data, or even ordered to give surveillance data, to both.
- olalonde 3y ago
  What do you mean by abuse? Can you name one instance of someone's life being negatively impacted by Google's data collection? > Not to mention that, beyond the surveillance they do for their private interests and business, even the "states and goverments" vs "Google and Facebook" are not even remotely separate from surveillance by states and police forces, cooperating, sharing data, or even ordered to give surveillance data, to both. I'll grant you that, but I wouldn't call that their business. They probably would do without if they could.

rewmie 3y ago

> I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. I can even train it locally on my own data if I want to. Your poor take is so unrelated to the article that it suggests you didn't even bothered to read the article you're trying to criticize. It completely fails to even take into account the very basic premise presented in the article. It adds nothing to the discussion, and it reads as uninformed contrarian jabs. Please refrain from adding noise to an otherwise interesting discussion.

insanitybit 3y ago
I read the entire article. I literally quoted from it. Did you bother to read my entire comment? How about when you comment you follow HN guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
- rewmie 3y ago
  > I read the entire article. I literally quoted from it. Did you bother to read my entire comment? I don't think you have. There is nothing in your comment that has any semblance of a relationship to the point made in the article you're supposedly commenting on. Here's a direct quote from the article: > “And the use of AI is also surveillant, right?” she continued. “You know, you walk past a facial recognition camera that’s instrumented with pseudo-scientific emotion recognition, and it produces data about you, right or wrong, that says ‘you are happy, you are sad, you have a bad character, you’re a liar, whatever.’ These are ultimately surveillance systems that are being marketed to those who have power over us generally: our employers, governments, border control, etc., to make determinations and predictions that will shape our access to resources and opportunities.” And here you are, posting inane non-sequitur comments on how it's possible to train models locally? No, you clearly did not read the article.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    > There is nothing in your comment that has You mean like me directly quoting parts of the article from both the beginning and end? Like me pointing out how the article talks about surveillance and then attempts to clumsily tie it to AI? Fuck off lol

coldtea 3y ago

>I can run models locally on my laptop, so no, it isn't. Which is irrelevant if tens of thousands of other AIs, from entities with 4-5 orders of magnitude more times the resources and power over the economy/society/country than you use them for surveillance and to optimize to your detriment. The claim was never was about the logical or practical impossibility of AI to also be used otherwise. And facial recognition is just the tip of the iceberg of AI uses in surveillance. Nor is "blurring out faces" much consolation. What's blurred in, say, a public "Street View" service doesn't mean is also blurred on the same company's raw captured data. And the example wasn't about such cases, but about surveillance cameras anyway - which don't blur anything, just use the AI to identify targets. We should instead of arguing the point (and especially, the point at large), instead of nitpicking on the speaker's expression, while onstage, during a conference panel talk - as if those would be the best formulated and exhaustive.

insanitybit 3y ago
> The claim was never was about the logical or practical impossibility of AI to also be used otherwise. Well, yeah, it actually was the claim. It's literally the headline and I even quoted directly from the article where they say that there is literally 100% overlap between AI and surveillance. If you want to say "that was hyperbole", congrats, you've arrived at the premise of my comment.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Ever heard of nuance and context? >If you want to say "that was hyperbole", congrats, you've arrived at the premise of my comment. The premise of the comment was more like saying a headline like "WWII is deadly for Europe" is BS because Switzerland was just fine.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    I think I was pretty clear and reasonable about where I think hyperbole would have been appropriate and where I think it wasn't appropriate. Disagree if you'd like.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bavsinksc 3y ago

You've missed the point. AI is a surveillance technology because training it to a point of realistic usefulness requires enough data that you can't produce it yourself, without mass surveillance. Surveillance is the prerequisite, not the intended use. That's... not actually stated outright in the article, so I get the confusion. But it seems to me like it's the only logical explanation for what is stated.

PeterisP 3y ago
There's no link between "enough data that you can't produce it yourself" and "mass surveillance" unless perhaps in the context of face recognition. Training a language model on every book ever published does not involve surveillance in any way, and if someone takes all of the work of every graphic artist, that can be called by many names but surveillance isn't one of them.