7 ms·

I think another aspect of this is mass criminal law enforcement enabled by AI. Many of our criminal laws are written with the implicit assumption that it takes

by bonyt 3y ago

I think another aspect of this is mass criminal law enforcement enabled by AI. Many of our criminal laws are written with the implicit assumption that it takes resources to investigate and prosecute a crime, and that this will limit the effective scope of the law. Prosecutorial discretion. Putting aside for the moment the (very serious) injustice that comes with the inequitable use of prosecutorial discretion, let's imagine a world without this discretion. Perhaps it's contrived, but one could imagine AI making it at least possible. Even by the book as it's currently written, is it a better world? Suddenly, an AI monitoring public activity can trigger an AI investigator to draft a warrant to be signed by an AI judge to approve the warrant and draft an opinion. One could argue that due process is had, and a record is available to the public showing that there was in fact probable cause for further investigation or even arrest. Maybe a ticket just pops out of the wall like in Demolition Man, but listing in writing clearly articulated probable cause and well-presented evidence. Investigating and prosecuting silly examples suddenly becomes possible. A CCTV camera catches someone finding a $20 bill on the street, and finds that they didn't report it on their tax return. The myriad of ways one can violate the CFAA. A passing mention of music piracy on a subway train can become an investigation and prosecution. Dilated pupils and a staggering gait could support a drug investigation. Heck, jaywalking tickets given out as though by speed camera. Who cares if the juice wasn't worth the squeeze when it's a cheap AI doing the squeezing. Is this a better world, or have we just all subjected ourselves to a life hyper-analyzed by a motivated prosecutor. Turning back in the general direction of reality, I'm aware that arguing "if we enforced all of our laws, it would be chaos" is more an indictment of our criminal justice system than it is of AI. I think that AI gives us a lens to imagine a world where we actually do that, however. And maybe thinking about it will help us build a better system.

yterdy 3y ago
The software that already exists along these lines already exhibit bias against marginalized groups. I have no trouble foreseeing a filter put on the end of the spigot that exempts certain people from the inconvenience of such surveillance. Might need a new law (it'll get passed).
- whythre 3y ago
  Sounds like the devil is in the details. Often the AI seems to struggle with darker skin… are you suggesting we sift who can be monitored/prosecuted based on skin darkness? That sounds like a mess to try to enshrine in law. Strong (and unhealthy) biases already exist when using this tech, but I am not sure that is the lever to pull that will fix the problem.
  - yterdy 3y ago
    You know that's not what I was suggesting. I'm saying that if precedence is anything to go by, companies will be perfectly happy extending the paradigm established with sentencing software to anyone who can't pay or leverage their connections. If we continue down this path, tomorrow's just today, but worse, and more. (Please try to have a more rationale understanding of today, tomorrow.)
otteromkram 3y ago
If it increases ticket issuance for passenger vehicle noise violations (eg - "sport" exhausts, booming stereo system, motorcycles), I'm down.
- namaria 3y ago
  "If it hurts people I hate I accept" - Every endorsement of authoritarian rule ever
  - pmg102 3y ago
    Feels pretty legit though. My freedom-from is impacted by other people's freedom-to: by curtailing their freedom, mine is expanded. Sure they won't like it - but I don't like it the other way round either.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      This doesn't add up. At best your overall freedom remains the same. You gain quiet, you lose the freedom to make noise yourself. Seems like a net-negative to me. Consider how little freedom you would have if laws were enforced to the lowest common denominator of what people find acceptable.
      - anigbrowl 3y ago
        I can go into the countryside and make noise all day. I don't see that there's a pre-existing freedom to inflict loud noises on my neighbors for no useful purpose.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        namaria 3y ago
        You most definitely cannot disturb wildlife or rural communities with noise.
trinsic2 3y ago
Yea this is a good point. If justice is executed by systems, rather than people (the end result from this scenario), we have lost the ability to challenge the process or the people involved in so many ways. It will make challenging how the law is executed almost impossible because there will be no person there to hold responsible.
- bonyt 3y ago
  I think that’s a good reason to question whether this would be due process. Why do we have due process? One key reason is that it gives people the opportunity to be heard. One could argue that being heard by an AI is no different from being heard by a human, just more efficient. But why do people want the opportunity to be heard? It’s partly the obvious, to have a chance to defend oneself against unjust exercises of power, and of course against simple error. But it’s also so that one can feel heard and not powerless. If the exercise of justice requires either brutal force or broad consent, giving people the feeling of being heard and able to defend themselves encourages broad consent. Being heard by an AI then has a brutal defect, it doesn’t make people feel heard. A big part of this may come from the idea that an AI cannot be held accountable if it is wrong or if it is acting unfairly. Justice, then, becomes a force of nature. I think we like to pretend justice is a force of nature anyway, but it’s really not. It’s man-made.
  - zbyte64 3y ago
    "it doesn't make people feel heard" isn't a real emotion, it includes a judgement about the AI. According to "Nonviolent Communication" p235; "unheard" speaks towards the feelings "sad, hostile, frustrated" and the needs "understanding" & "consideration". Everyone agrees AI would be more efficient, but people are concerned that the AI will not be able to make contextual considerations based on a shared understanding of what it's like to live a human life.
    - bonyt 3y ago
      That's true! I suspect it will be difficult to convince people that an AI can, as you suggest, make contextual considerations based on a shared understanding of what it's like to live a human life.
lordnacho 3y ago
This is a good point, it reminds me of how VAR has come into football. Before VAR, there were fewer penalties awarded. Now that referees have an official camera they can rely on, they can enforce the rules exactly as written, and it changes the game.
DebtDeflation 3y ago
>Suddenly, an AI monitoring public activity can trigger an AI investigator to draft a warrant to be signed by an AI judge to approve the warrant and draft an opinion. Or the AI just sends a text message to all the cops in the area saying "this person has committed a crime". Like this case where cameras read license plates, check to see if the car is stolen, and then text nearby cops. At least when it works and doesn't flag innocent people like in the below case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUvZlEg8c8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUvZlEg8c8c
JCharante 3y ago
I don't think it'd be chaos. I think the laws would be adjusted.
- bonyt 3y ago
  This is fair. I just wonder if we're about getting to the point where we should be talking about how they would be adjusted.
- digging 3y ago
  I think that's an optimistic view, but even if it's right, it will be years-to-decades of semi-chaos before the laws are updated appropriately.
okasaki 3y ago
> Is this a better world, If the same monitoring is present on buses and private planes, homeless hostels and mega-mansions then it absolutely is better.
- stronglikedan 3y ago
  Private property? Nah, nothing better about that.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  You're describing a hypothetical world that will never exist. Basically if we solve all corruption and inequality in enforcement between economic/power classes - all-pervasive surveillance will be a net benefit. It's like pondering hypotheticals about what would happen if we lived in Middle Earth.
- bonyt 3y ago
  "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
  - okasaki 3y ago
    I mean, presumably the AI wouldn't just be monitoring people sleeping under bridges, but would also be able to effectively cut through tax evasion bullshit, insider trading, bribery, etc.
kafrofrite 3y ago
IIRC, in [1] it mentioned a few examples of AI that exhibited the same bias that is currently present in the judicial system, banks etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Math_Destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Math_Destruction
- dorchadas 3y ago
  This is honestly what scares me the most. Our biases are built in to AI, but we pretend they're not. People will say "Well, it was the algorithm/AI, so we can't change it". Which is just awful and should scare the shit out of everyone. There was a book [0] written almost fifty years ago that predicted this. I still haven't read it, but really need to. The author claims it made him a pariah among other AI researchers at the time. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Power_and_Human_Reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Power_and_Human_Reaso...
  - pixl97 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue while not about AI directly and supposedly satirical really captures how the system works.
jodrellblank 3y ago
> "Heck, jaywalking tickets given out as though by speed camera." This has been a thing since 2017: https://futurism.com/facial-recognition-china-social-credit https://futurism.com/facial-recognition-china-social-credit - "Since April 2017, this city in China's Guangdong province has deployed a rather intense technique to deter jaywalking. Anyone who crosses against the light will find their face, name, and part of their government ID number displayed on a large LED screen above the intersection, thanks to facial recognition devices all over the city." - "If that feels invasive, you don't even know the half of it. Now, Motherboard reports that a Chinese artificial intelligence company is partnering the system with mobile carriers, so that offenders receive a text message with a fine as soon as they are caught."
- mattnewton 3y ago
  There are lots of false positives too, like this case where a woman who’s face appeared in a printed advertisement on the side of a bus was flagged for jaywalking. https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-22-chinese-facial-recognition-confuses-bus-ad-with-jaywalker.html https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-22-chinese-facial-recogniti...
  - flemhans 3y ago
    Just checking ChatGPT out of interest: Top Left Panel: This panel shows the pedestrian crossing with no visible jaywalking. The crossing stripes are clear, and there are no pedestrians on them. Top Center Panel: Similar to the top left, it shows the crossing, and there is no evidence of jaywalking. Top Right Panel: This panel is mostly obscured by an overlaid image of a person's face, making it impossible to determine if there is any jaywalking. Bottom Left Panel: It is difficult to discern specific details because of the low resolution and the angle of the shot. The red text overlays may be covering some parts of the scene, but from what is visible, there do not appear to be any individuals on the crossing. Bottom Right Panel: This panel contains text and does not provide a clear view of the pedestrian crossing or any individuals that might be jaywalking.
nox100 3y ago
[flagged]
- mikepurvis 3y ago
  Honestly, when it comes to road-related violations (speeding, yield issues, fulling stopping at stop signs or RTOR, etc), I feel similarly. The current state of affairs where it's a $300 ticket that you're probably never going to see because 99% of the time you get away with it is dumb— it makes people contemptuous of the law and also feel super resentful and hard-done-by if they do finally get caught. And it's a positive feedback loop where that culture makes the road an unsafe place for people walking and cycling, so less people choose those modes, putting more cars on the road and making it even less safe. Consistent enforcement with much lower, escalating fines would do a lot more to actually change behaviour. And the only way to get there at scale is via a lot of automation.
  - trinsic2 3y ago
    I wonder whats going on at the enforcement level. It seems like there is a dumbing down of that system. It would be interesting to see some research on this.
    - mikepurvis 3y ago
      Oh I think it's a lot of exactly what's being discussed elsewhere in this thread— the cost of consistent enforcement is just way too high, so there isn't much of it. And that suits most people just fine since they're contemptuous about road safety anyway; they want to get where they're going unmolested and have the cops focused on "real" crimes. Road safety in the end is a commons, just like littering. No one person's action is going to make the difference, but coordinated effort is only possible when there's enough public sentiment to get a central mandate together.
- trinsic2 3y ago
  Yea that stuff is happening here where I live (1hr away) more often as well, it seemed like it started happening more often during COVID. People are running red lights more often and going way over the speed limit.
dist-epoch 3y ago
Or maybe if such a thing is applied for real it will lead to the elimination of bullshit laws (jaywalking, ...), since suddenly 10% of the population would be fined/incarcerated/...
theGnuMe 3y ago
So the way out of this is that you have the constitutional right to confront your accuser in court. When accused by a piece of software that generally means they have to disclose the source code and explain how it came to its answers. Not many people have exercised this right with respect to DUI breathalyzers but it exists and was affirmed by the Supreme Court. And it will also apply to AI.
Zenst 3y ago
The whole automation and overzealous less leeway/common sense interpretations have as we have seen, many an automated traffic/parking ticket come into question. Applying that to many walks of life, say farming, could well see chaos and a whole new interpretation to the song "Old McDonald had a farm, AI AI oh", it's gone as McDonald is in jail for numerous permit, environmental and agricultural regulations that saw produce cross state lines deeming it more serious a crime as he got buried in automated red-tape.
throwaway290 3y ago
You miss the part that people who get access to stronger AI can similarly use it to improve their odds of not being found or getting better outcomes, while the poor guy gets fined for AI hallucinations and doesn't have the money to get to a human like the court is now one big Google support.
perihelions 3y ago
An alternative possibility is that society might decay to the point future people might choose this kind of dystopia. Imagine a fully automated, post-employment world gone horribly wrong, where the majority of society is destitute, aimless, opiate-addicted. No UBI utopia of philosophers and artists; just a gradual Rust-belt like decline that gets worse and worse, no brakes at the bottom of the hill. Not knowing what else to do, the "survivors" might choose this kind of nuclear approach: automate away the panopticons, the prisons, the segregation of failed society. Eloi and Morlocks. Bay Area tech workers and Bay Area tent cities. We haven't done any better in the past, so why should we expect to do better in the future, when our "tools" of social control become more efficient, more potent? When we can deempathize more easily than ever, through the emotional distance of AI intermediaries?
- pixl97 3y ago
  Oh boy, real life Manna https://marshallbrain.com/manna1 https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
paganel 3y ago
At that point some people will physically revolt, I know I will. We’re not that far away from said physical AI-related revolt anyway, and I do feel for the computer programmers here who will be the target of that physical violence, hopefully they knew what they were getting into.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  Ha. You'd like to think so, but it's going to be awfully hard to coordinate resistance when the mass spying sweeps everyone up in a keyword-matching dragnet before the execution phase. This is the problem with every outgroup being labelled "terrorists." Sabotage will be the name of the game at that point. Find ways to quietly confuse, poison, overwhelm and undermine the system without attracting the attention of the monitoring apparatus.
  - paganel 3y ago
    I get your point, I think along those lines quite often myself. As per the sabotage part, bad input data that does not accurately get labeled as such until way too late in the “AI learning cycle” is I think the way to go. Lots and lots of such bad input data. How we would get to that point, that I don’t know yet, but it’s a valid option going forward.
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      > How we would get to that point, that I don’t know yet, but it’s a valid option going forward. Chaos engineering. As a modern example, all this gender identity stuff wreaks absolute havoc on credit bureau databases. Tomorrow, we'll have people running around in fursuits to avoid facial recognition. After that, who knows.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  Don’t worry, stuff like this is why we have the 2A here in the USA. Sounds like it’s time for AI programmers to get their concealed carry licenses. Of course, they will be the first users of smart guns, so don’t bother trying to steal their pistol out of their holsters.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
You don’t need AI for that. It was probably possible to do something like that when personal computers first came out.
kenjackson 3y ago
> Many of our criminal laws are written with the implicit assumption that it takes resources to investigate and prosecute a crime, I think this depends on the law. For jaywalking, sure. For murder and robbery probably less so. And law enforcement resources seem scarce on all of them.
- whelp_24 3y ago
  Murder and robbery too. Those crimes are just worth investigating.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    The problem here is this is not a bureaucratic view of how law enforcement actually works in the field. https://www.kxan.com/news/national-news/traffic-tickets-can-be-profitable-and-fairness-isnt-the-bottom-line-in-city-courts-where-judges-impose-the-fines/ https://www.kxan.com/news/national-news/traffic-tickets-can-... >We counted the number of days judges waited before suspending a driver’s license. Then, we looked at whether the city was experiencing a revenue shortfall. We found that judges suspend licenses faster when their cities need more money. The effect was pretty large: A 1% decrease in revenue caused licenses to be suspended three days faster. So what typically happens is these AI systems are sold at catching murderers, but at the end of the day they are revenue generation systems for tickets. And then those systems get stuck in places where a smaller percent of the population can afford lawyers to prevent said ticketing systems from becoming cost centers.
    - whelp_24 3y ago
      oh, i definitely wasn't arguing for ai enforcement. Not even a little, i was just saying that laws are written with the assumption that enforcement takes resources.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
n8cpdx 3y ago
In democracies at least, the law can be changed to reflect this new reality. Laws that don’t need to be enforced and are only around to enable pretextual stops can be dropped if direct enforcement is possible. There are plenty of crimes where 100% enforcement is highly desirable: pickpocketing, carjacking, (arguably) graffiti, murder, reckless and impaired driving, to name a few. Ultimately, in situations with near 100% enforcement, you shouldn’t actually need much punishment because people learn not to do those things. And when there is punishment, it doesn’t need to be severe. Deterrence theory is an interesting field of study, one source but there are many: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072415 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072...
erikerikson 3y ago
Yes, with properly developed AI, rather than penalizing speeding, which most of us do and is also a proxy for harmful outcomes and inefficiencies, we can penalize reckless behaviors such as coming too close to vehicles, aggressive weaving, and other factors that are tightly correlated with the negative outcomes we care to reduce (i.e. loss of life, property damage). So too, the systems could warn people about their behavior and guide them in ways that would positively increase everyone's benefits. Of course this circumstance will probably go away with self-directing cars (which fall into the "do the right thing by default" bucket) but the point is illustrated that the laws can be better formulated to focus on increasing the probabilities of desirable outcomes (i.e. harm reduction, efficiency, effectiveness), be embodied and delivered in the moment (research required on means of doing so that don't exacerbate problems), and carry with them a beneficial component (i.e. understanding).
- StanislavPetrov 3y ago
  >desirable outcomes (i.e. harm reduction, efficiency, effectiveness) Unfortunately different people have different definitions of "harm" and "effectiveness". What one person consider a, "positive increase in behavior" another might consider a grievous violation of their freedom and personal autonomy. For example there is an ongoing debate about compelled speech. Some people view it as positive and desirable to use the force of law to compel people refer to others as they wish to be referred, while others strongly support their freedom to speak freely, even if others are offended. Who gets to program the AI with their definition of positivity in this case? A free society demands a somewhat narrowly tailored set of laws that govern behavior (especially interpersonal behavior). An ever-present AI that monitors us all the time and tries to steer (or worse, compel with the force of law) all of our daily behaviors is the opposite of freedom, it is the worst kind of totalitarianism.
  - erikerikson 3y ago
    We agree that defining such terms involves trade-offs yet the perfect should not be the enemy of the better.

by bonyt 3y ago

yterdy 3y ago

The software that already exists along these lines already exhibit bias against marginalized groups. I have no trouble foreseeing a filter put on the end of the spigot that exempts certain people from the inconvenience of such surveillance. Might need a new law (it'll get passed).

whythre 3y ago
Sounds like the devil is in the details. Often the AI seems to struggle with darker skin… are you suggesting we sift who can be monitored/prosecuted based on skin darkness? That sounds like a mess to try to enshrine in law. Strong (and unhealthy) biases already exist when using this tech, but I am not sure that is the lever to pull that will fix the problem.
- yterdy 3y ago
  You know that's not what I was suggesting. I'm saying that if precedence is anything to go by, companies will be perfectly happy extending the paradigm established with sentencing software to anyone who can't pay or leverage their connections. If we continue down this path, tomorrow's just today, but worse, and more. (Please try to have a more rationale understanding of today, tomorrow.)

otteromkram 3y ago

If it increases ticket issuance for passenger vehicle noise violations (eg - "sport" exhausts, booming stereo system, motorcycles), I'm down.

namaria 3y ago
"If it hurts people I hate I accept" - Every endorsement of authoritarian rule ever
- pmg102 3y ago
  Feels pretty legit though. My freedom-from is impacted by other people's freedom-to: by curtailing their freedom, mine is expanded. Sure they won't like it - but I don't like it the other way round either.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    This doesn't add up. At best your overall freedom remains the same. You gain quiet, you lose the freedom to make noise yourself. Seems like a net-negative to me. Consider how little freedom you would have if laws were enforced to the lowest common denominator of what people find acceptable.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      I can go into the countryside and make noise all day. I don't see that there's a pre-existing freedom to inflict loud noises on my neighbors for no useful purpose.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - namaria 3y ago
        You most definitely cannot disturb wildlife or rural communities with noise.

trinsic2 3y ago

Yea this is a good point. If justice is executed by systems, rather than people (the end result from this scenario), we have lost the ability to challenge the process or the people involved in so many ways. It will make challenging how the law is executed almost impossible because there will be no person there to hold responsible.

bonyt 3y ago
I think that’s a good reason to question whether this would be due process. Why do we have due process? One key reason is that it gives people the opportunity to be heard. One could argue that being heard by an AI is no different from being heard by a human, just more efficient. But why do people want the opportunity to be heard? It’s partly the obvious, to have a chance to defend oneself against unjust exercises of power, and of course against simple error. But it’s also so that one can feel heard and not powerless. If the exercise of justice requires either brutal force or broad consent, giving people the feeling of being heard and able to defend themselves encourages broad consent. Being heard by an AI then has a brutal defect, it doesn’t make people feel heard. A big part of this may come from the idea that an AI cannot be held accountable if it is wrong or if it is acting unfairly. Justice, then, becomes a force of nature. I think we like to pretend justice is a force of nature anyway, but it’s really not. It’s man-made.
- zbyte64 3y ago
  "it doesn't make people feel heard" isn't a real emotion, it includes a judgement about the AI. According to "Nonviolent Communication" p235; "unheard" speaks towards the feelings "sad, hostile, frustrated" and the needs "understanding" & "consideration". Everyone agrees AI would be more efficient, but people are concerned that the AI will not be able to make contextual considerations based on a shared understanding of what it's like to live a human life.
  - bonyt 3y ago
    That's true! I suspect it will be difficult to convince people that an AI can, as you suggest, make contextual considerations based on a shared understanding of what it's like to live a human life.

lordnacho 3y ago

This is a good point, it reminds me of how VAR has come into football. Before VAR, there were fewer penalties awarded. Now that referees have an official camera they can rely on, they can enforce the rules exactly as written, and it changes the game.

DebtDeflation 3y ago

>Suddenly, an AI monitoring public activity can trigger an AI investigator to draft a warrant to be signed by an AI judge to approve the warrant and draft an opinion. Or the AI just sends a text message to all the cops in the area saying "this person has committed a crime". Like this case where cameras read license plates, check to see if the car is stolen, and then text nearby cops. At least when it works and doesn't flag innocent people like in the below case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUvZlEg8c8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUvZlEg8c8c

JCharante 3y ago

I don't think it'd be chaos. I think the laws would be adjusted.

bonyt 3y ago
This is fair. I just wonder if we're about getting to the point where we should be talking about how they would be adjusted.
digging 3y ago
I think that's an optimistic view, but even if it's right, it will be years-to-decades of semi-chaos before the laws are updated appropriately.

okasaki 3y ago

> Is this a better world, If the same monitoring is present on buses and private planes, homeless hostels and mega-mansions then it absolutely is better.

stronglikedan 3y ago
Private property? Nah, nothing better about that.
AlexandrB 3y ago
You're describing a hypothetical world that will never exist. Basically if we solve all corruption and inequality in enforcement between economic/power classes - all-pervasive surveillance will be a net benefit. It's like pondering hypotheticals about what would happen if we lived in Middle Earth.
bonyt 3y ago
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
- okasaki 3y ago
  I mean, presumably the AI wouldn't just be monitoring people sleeping under bridges, but would also be able to effectively cut through tax evasion bullshit, insider trading, bribery, etc.

kafrofrite 3y ago

IIRC, in [1] it mentioned a few examples of AI that exhibited the same bias that is currently present in the judicial system, banks etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Math_Destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Math_Destruction

dorchadas 3y ago
This is honestly what scares me the most. Our biases are built in to AI, but we pretend they're not. People will say "Well, it was the algorithm/AI, so we can't change it". Which is just awful and should scare the shit out of everyone. There was a book [0] written almost fifty years ago that predicted this. I still haven't read it, but really need to. The author claims it made him a pariah among other AI researchers at the time. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Power_and_Human_Reason https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Power_and_Human_Reaso...
- pixl97 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_Don%27t_Argue while not about AI directly and supposedly satirical really captures how the system works.

jodrellblank 3y ago

> "Heck, jaywalking tickets given out as though by speed camera." This has been a thing since 2017: https://futurism.com/facial-recognition-china-social-credit https://futurism.com/facial-recognition-china-social-credit - "Since April 2017, this city in China's Guangdong province has deployed a rather intense technique to deter jaywalking. Anyone who crosses against the light will find their face, name, and part of their government ID number displayed on a large LED screen above the intersection, thanks to facial recognition devices all over the city." - "If that feels invasive, you don't even know the half of it. Now, Motherboard reports that a Chinese artificial intelligence company is partnering the system with mobile carriers, so that offenders receive a text message with a fine as soon as they are caught."

mattnewton 3y ago
There are lots of false positives too, like this case where a woman who’s face appeared in a printed advertisement on the side of a bus was flagged for jaywalking. https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-22-chinese-facial-recognition-confuses-bus-ad-with-jaywalker.html https://www.engadget.com/2018-11-22-chinese-facial-recogniti...
- flemhans 3y ago
  Just checking ChatGPT out of interest: Top Left Panel: This panel shows the pedestrian crossing with no visible jaywalking. The crossing stripes are clear, and there are no pedestrians on them. Top Center Panel: Similar to the top left, it shows the crossing, and there is no evidence of jaywalking. Top Right Panel: This panel is mostly obscured by an overlaid image of a person's face, making it impossible to determine if there is any jaywalking. Bottom Left Panel: It is difficult to discern specific details because of the low resolution and the angle of the shot. The red text overlays may be covering some parts of the scene, but from what is visible, there do not appear to be any individuals on the crossing. Bottom Right Panel: This panel contains text and does not provide a clear view of the pedestrian crossing or any individuals that might be jaywalking.

nox100 3y ago

[flagged]

mikepurvis 3y ago
Honestly, when it comes to road-related violations (speeding, yield issues, fulling stopping at stop signs or RTOR, etc), I feel similarly. The current state of affairs where it's a $300 ticket that you're probably never going to see because 99% of the time you get away with it is dumb— it makes people contemptuous of the law and also feel super resentful and hard-done-by if they do finally get caught. And it's a positive feedback loop where that culture makes the road an unsafe place for people walking and cycling, so less people choose those modes, putting more cars on the road and making it even less safe. Consistent enforcement with much lower, escalating fines would do a lot more to actually change behaviour. And the only way to get there at scale is via a lot of automation.
- trinsic2 3y ago
  I wonder whats going on at the enforcement level. It seems like there is a dumbing down of that system. It would be interesting to see some research on this.
  - mikepurvis 3y ago
    Oh I think it's a lot of exactly what's being discussed elsewhere in this thread— the cost of consistent enforcement is just way too high, so there isn't much of it. And that suits most people just fine since they're contemptuous about road safety anyway; they want to get where they're going unmolested and have the cops focused on "real" crimes. Road safety in the end is a commons, just like littering. No one person's action is going to make the difference, but coordinated effort is only possible when there's enough public sentiment to get a central mandate together.
trinsic2 3y ago
Yea that stuff is happening here where I live (1hr away) more often as well, it seemed like it started happening more often during COVID. People are running red lights more often and going way over the speed limit.

dist-epoch 3y ago

Or maybe if such a thing is applied for real it will lead to the elimination of bullshit laws (jaywalking, ...), since suddenly 10% of the population would be fined/incarcerated/...

theGnuMe 3y ago

So the way out of this is that you have the constitutional right to confront your accuser in court. When accused by a piece of software that generally means they have to disclose the source code and explain how it came to its answers. Not many people have exercised this right with respect to DUI breathalyzers but it exists and was affirmed by the Supreme Court. And it will also apply to AI.

Zenst 3y ago

The whole automation and overzealous less leeway/common sense interpretations have as we have seen, many an automated traffic/parking ticket come into question. Applying that to many walks of life, say farming, could well see chaos and a whole new interpretation to the song "Old McDonald had a farm, AI AI oh", it's gone as McDonald is in jail for numerous permit, environmental and agricultural regulations that saw produce cross state lines deeming it more serious a crime as he got buried in automated red-tape.

throwaway290 3y ago

You miss the part that people who get access to stronger AI can similarly use it to improve their odds of not being found or getting better outcomes, while the poor guy gets fined for AI hallucinations and doesn't have the money to get to a human like the court is now one big Google support.

perihelions 3y ago

An alternative possibility is that society might decay to the point future people might choose this kind of dystopia. Imagine a fully automated, post-employment world gone horribly wrong, where the majority of society is destitute, aimless, opiate-addicted. No UBI utopia of philosophers and artists; just a gradual Rust-belt like decline that gets worse and worse, no brakes at the bottom of the hill. Not knowing what else to do, the "survivors" might choose this kind of nuclear approach: automate away the panopticons, the prisons, the segregation of failed society. Eloi and Morlocks. Bay Area tech workers and Bay Area tent cities. We haven't done any better in the past, so why should we expect to do better in the future, when our "tools" of social control become more efficient, more potent? When we can deempathize more easily than ever, through the emotional distance of AI intermediaries?

pixl97 3y ago
Oh boy, real life Manna https://marshallbrain.com/manna1 https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

paganel 3y ago

At that point some people will physically revolt, I know I will. We’re not that far away from said physical AI-related revolt anyway, and I do feel for the computer programmers here who will be the target of that physical violence, hopefully they knew what they were getting into.

jstarfish 3y ago
Ha. You'd like to think so, but it's going to be awfully hard to coordinate resistance when the mass spying sweeps everyone up in a keyword-matching dragnet before the execution phase. This is the problem with every outgroup being labelled "terrorists." Sabotage will be the name of the game at that point. Find ways to quietly confuse, poison, overwhelm and undermine the system without attracting the attention of the monitoring apparatus.
- paganel 3y ago
  I get your point, I think along those lines quite often myself. As per the sabotage part, bad input data that does not accurately get labeled as such until way too late in the “AI learning cycle” is I think the way to go. Lots and lots of such bad input data. How we would get to that point, that I don’t know yet, but it’s a valid option going forward.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    > How we would get to that point, that I don’t know yet, but it’s a valid option going forward. Chaos engineering. As a modern example, all this gender identity stuff wreaks absolute havoc on credit bureau databases. Tomorrow, we'll have people running around in fursuits to avoid facial recognition. After that, who knows.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
Don’t worry, stuff like this is why we have the 2A here in the USA. Sounds like it’s time for AI programmers to get their concealed carry licenses. Of course, they will be the first users of smart guns, so don’t bother trying to steal their pistol out of their holsters.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

You don’t need AI for that. It was probably possible to do something like that when personal computers first came out.

kenjackson 3y ago

> Many of our criminal laws are written with the implicit assumption that it takes resources to investigate and prosecute a crime, I think this depends on the law. For jaywalking, sure. For murder and robbery probably less so. And law enforcement resources seem scarce on all of them.

whelp_24 3y ago
Murder and robbery too. Those crimes are just worth investigating.
- pixl97 3y ago
  The problem here is this is not a bureaucratic view of how law enforcement actually works in the field. https://www.kxan.com/news/national-news/traffic-tickets-can-be-profitable-and-fairness-isnt-the-bottom-line-in-city-courts-where-judges-impose-the-fines/ https://www.kxan.com/news/national-news/traffic-tickets-can-... >We counted the number of days judges waited before suspending a driver’s license. Then, we looked at whether the city was experiencing a revenue shortfall. We found that judges suspend licenses faster when their cities need more money. The effect was pretty large: A 1% decrease in revenue caused licenses to be suspended three days faster. So what typically happens is these AI systems are sold at catching murderers, but at the end of the day they are revenue generation systems for tickets. And then those systems get stuck in places where a smaller percent of the population can afford lawyers to prevent said ticketing systems from becoming cost centers.
  - whelp_24 3y ago
    oh, i definitely wasn't arguing for ai enforcement. Not even a little, i was just saying that laws are written with the assumption that enforcement takes resources.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

n8cpdx 3y ago

In democracies at least, the law can be changed to reflect this new reality. Laws that don’t need to be enforced and are only around to enable pretextual stops can be dropped if direct enforcement is possible. There are plenty of crimes where 100% enforcement is highly desirable: pickpocketing, carjacking, (arguably) graffiti, murder, reckless and impaired driving, to name a few. Ultimately, in situations with near 100% enforcement, you shouldn’t actually need much punishment because people learn not to do those things. And when there is punishment, it doesn’t need to be severe. Deterrence theory is an interesting field of study, one source but there are many: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072415 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072...

erikerikson 3y ago

Yes, with properly developed AI, rather than penalizing speeding, which most of us do and is also a proxy for harmful outcomes and inefficiencies, we can penalize reckless behaviors such as coming too close to vehicles, aggressive weaving, and other factors that are tightly correlated with the negative outcomes we care to reduce (i.e. loss of life, property damage). So too, the systems could warn people about their behavior and guide them in ways that would positively increase everyone's benefits. Of course this circumstance will probably go away with self-directing cars (which fall into the "do the right thing by default" bucket) but the point is illustrated that the laws can be better formulated to focus on increasing the probabilities of desirable outcomes (i.e. harm reduction, efficiency, effectiveness), be embodied and delivered in the moment (research required on means of doing so that don't exacerbate problems), and carry with them a beneficial component (i.e. understanding).

StanislavPetrov 3y ago
>desirable outcomes (i.e. harm reduction, efficiency, effectiveness) Unfortunately different people have different definitions of "harm" and "effectiveness". What one person consider a, "positive increase in behavior" another might consider a grievous violation of their freedom and personal autonomy. For example there is an ongoing debate about compelled speech. Some people view it as positive and desirable to use the force of law to compel people refer to others as they wish to be referred, while others strongly support their freedom to speak freely, even if others are offended. Who gets to program the AI with their definition of positivity in this case? A free society demands a somewhat narrowly tailored set of laws that govern behavior (especially interpersonal behavior). An ever-present AI that monitors us all the time and tries to steer (or worse, compel with the force of law) all of our daily behaviors is the opposite of freedom, it is the worst kind of totalitarianism.
- erikerikson 3y ago
  We agree that defining such terms involves trade-offs yet the perfect should not be the enemy of the better.