3 ms·
I feel like this is a huge digression, but this is basically the perfect counter-argument to "its never been illegal to write down license plate numbers/stake o
by petsfed 2y ago
I feel like this is a huge digression, but this is basically the perfect counter-argument to "its never been illegal to write down license plate numbers/stake out people's houses/write down the addresses of mail delivered to a home/etc, why should we make new rules now that AI is doing it?"
Obviously manually interceding whenever you have a server failure is unsustainable when you have 1000 (or more servers). Why do people somehow believe that manually interceding to prevent bad action with surveillance is somehow sustainable, when previously the rate limiter was that the surveillance itself was manual?
- janalsncm 2y agoDefinitely. There are emergent properties of technology when applied at scale that make something that was just weird and annoying before into something truly dangerous. There are a lot of things that are unintuitive at larger scales. AI and intellectual property is another. And I have sympathy for people who said that algorithmically amplified speech on large platforms is qualitatively different from regular town square speech. It is. I don’t know how the laws should change in response but to pretend that Twitter is just like a bar is pretty naive imo.
- Gunax 2y agoI appreciate your comment because I think I am usually on the other side.
- petsfed 2y agoConsidering that I'm usually on the side of "its already illegal, making it more illegal won't help", I've struggled for a long time to express what exactly was the problem with e.g. automated surveillance, because I couldn't express it in a way that was convincing even to myself.