3 ms·

That you can be identified, cataloged and controlled, potentially. We have the technology to create heaven or hell depending on who controls it…

alwa 1y ago
Is it certain that impoverished people would weigh those potential consequences more heavily than being paid today? For that matter, do we expect that the impoverished people the gp commenter refers to would resist, say, government-led efforts to compel their biometrics from them? [0] [0] e.g. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2022/0425/On-biometric-IDs-India-is-a-laboratory-for-the-rest-of-the-world https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2022/0425...
- andy_ppp 1y ago
  Everyone deserves food and political freedom in my opinion. We could probably do it too if we actually tried.
  - alwa 1y ago
    I agree! I think what rubbed me was the idea that the people taking Altman’s deal “do not know the consequences of what they are doing.” Down that road lies a paternalistic flavor of charity, a spirit of “protecting them from themselves.” And that seems to evoke the idea that poor is the same as ignorant. That there’s only one correct value to assign to your biometric data, and anyone who values theirs differently must do so because they’re ignorant, rather than just having different values from you. We can advocate for political freedom, material security, and just societies—and probably get better results—if we don’t model people as helpless or uninformed or without agency just because they’re in a socially vulnerable position.
    - lurk2 1y ago
      > We can advocate for political freedom, material security, and just societies—and probably get better results—if we don’t model people as helpless or uninformed or without agency just because they’re in a socially vulnerable position. Sam Altman has a far greater capacity for agency than an impoverished Filipino signing away his biometric data for the price of a Domino’s pizza.
    - Disposal8433 1y ago
      Poor people are not ignorant, they are desperate though. And that's why using their private data is despicable.
    - keybored 1y ago
      People are selling things that should be inalienable, ostensibly because they really need to. The most immediate, glaring problem is that they are poor. This can be answered: > > Is it certain that impoverished people would weigh those potential consequences more heavily than being paid today? The answer is: No, it is not certain. Why? Because they are poor. Poor people have less agency. That’s just a fact. And they are being preyed upon by Altman. Making this about whether poor Filipinos are making an informed agreement with an AI bro is tone-deaf.
    - immibis 1y ago
      If I tell you to give me your money or I'll kill you, by your reasoning it is good for you that you gave me the money. You are completely ignoring the situation that I set up where you had to do a bad thing to protect yourself from an even worse thing, and that you'd be even better off if some guy killed me so that I couldn't kill you.
- croes 1y ago
  Poor people would sell a kidney if the otherwise consequence is starvation. That is not a good measure for the willingness of a decision
  - alwa 1y ago
    True, but does that mean the solution is to force the starvation because their choice to alleviate it was insufficiently willing for our tastes? At least they’ll starve with two kidneys, and we hope the would-be kidney recipient can get by on dialysis a while longer? By all means let’s engineer a world where people are never faced with crappy choices. But people are living in the present, not the glorious future: Taking away the choice in this case doesn’t seem to fix the situation, and deprives people of a benefit they’d accept if you let them choose.
    - croes 1y ago
      But laying the cornerstone for a dystopian future doesn‘t help either. By your logic we shouldn’t fight child labor or drug trafficking. All that feeds people too.
    - keybored 1y ago
      > True, but does that mean the solution is to force the starvation because their choice to alleviate it was insufficiently willing for our tastes? At least they’ll starve with two kidneys, and we hope the would-be kidney recipient can get by on dialysis a while longer? That’s not what anyone who objects to this thinks and you know it. Anyone who objects to people selling away something dear because they are poor want (1) those people to not be poor and (2) those other people to not prey on them. People are outraged when people are forced to drink dirty water—they are not outraged at desperate people for drinking dirty rainwater. It’s a false choice. > By all means let’s engineer a world where people are never faced with crappy choices. But people are living in the present, not the glorious future: Taking away the choice in this case doesn’t seem to fix the situation, and deprives people of a benefit they’d accept if you let them choose. I’m Sam Altman and I approve this message.
Keyframe 1y ago
not that it makes it any better, but you're saying that like it's impossible to do now what you're describing. you're already in the system, whether you like it or not, both public and private one(s).
0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
Is that any different from reality now? At least they throw a few dollars at you for it. I suspect that my face has been recorded and linked to my profile at several stores. Palantir or similar have probably scrapped all of the internet looking to link a face to an identity. Real ID just because fully required for domestic air travel.
- hammock 1y ago
  Has your eye been recorded at the store?
  - ptero 1y ago
    What does a picture of your eye allow that fingerprints, face scans and other passport biometrics that have already been collected and linked do not? Honest question.
    - andy_ppp 1y ago
      Yes the government and or private companies don’t have a copy of my fingerprints and I’d honestly rather they didn’t have pictures of my face on record either. Just because we’ve become accustomed to these breaches of our privacy doesn’t mean they are good.
      - ptero 1y ago
        > Just because we’ve become accustomed to these breaches of our privacy doesn’t mean they are good. 100% this. The fact that the governments and corporations have enough information at their fingertips to identify people from chance photos is, IMO, not good. However that genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to get it back in. Cameras are ubiquitous and one can get a decent quality fingerprint from store camera footage. Any time I do eye exam the doctor takes an eye scan and uploads it somewhere. Passport biometrics are becoming required and most countries will match it with a face scan on border crossing. And this is just a tip of the iceberg. I would like to be wrong, but IMO the only solution to the government being able to track anyone they like (or, rather, do not like) is via legislation, not technology. And with various 3-letter agencies being routinely allowed special access "because security" this path is unlikely to be viable either. My 2c.
BurningFrog 1y ago
That train has already sailed. We can be identified and found in any number of ways already. Our kids will not imagine any other way. As you say, the future can become heaven or hell.

alwa 1y ago

Is it certain that impoverished people would weigh those potential consequences more heavily than being paid today? For that matter, do we expect that the impoverished people the gp commenter refers to would resist, say, government-led efforts to compel their biometrics from them? [0] [0] e.g. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2022/0425/On-biometric-IDs-India-is-a-laboratory-for-the-rest-of-the-world https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2022/0425...

andy_ppp 1y ago
Everyone deserves food and political freedom in my opinion. We could probably do it too if we actually tried.
- alwa 1y ago
  I agree! I think what rubbed me was the idea that the people taking Altman’s deal “do not know the consequences of what they are doing.” Down that road lies a paternalistic flavor of charity, a spirit of “protecting them from themselves.” And that seems to evoke the idea that poor is the same as ignorant. That there’s only one correct value to assign to your biometric data, and anyone who values theirs differently must do so because they’re ignorant, rather than just having different values from you. We can advocate for political freedom, material security, and just societies—and probably get better results—if we don’t model people as helpless or uninformed or without agency just because they’re in a socially vulnerable position.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > We can advocate for political freedom, material security, and just societies—and probably get better results—if we don’t model people as helpless or uninformed or without agency just because they’re in a socially vulnerable position. Sam Altman has a far greater capacity for agency than an impoverished Filipino signing away his biometric data for the price of a Domino’s pizza.
  - Disposal8433 1y ago
    Poor people are not ignorant, they are desperate though. And that's why using their private data is despicable.
  - keybored 1y ago
    People are selling things that should be inalienable, ostensibly because they really need to. The most immediate, glaring problem is that they are poor. This can be answered: > > Is it certain that impoverished people would weigh those potential consequences more heavily than being paid today? The answer is: No, it is not certain. Why? Because they are poor. Poor people have less agency. That’s just a fact. And they are being preyed upon by Altman. Making this about whether poor Filipinos are making an informed agreement with an AI bro is tone-deaf.
  - immibis 1y ago
    If I tell you to give me your money or I'll kill you, by your reasoning it is good for you that you gave me the money. You are completely ignoring the situation that I set up where you had to do a bad thing to protect yourself from an even worse thing, and that you'd be even better off if some guy killed me so that I couldn't kill you.
croes 1y ago
Poor people would sell a kidney if the otherwise consequence is starvation. That is not a good measure for the willingness of a decision
- alwa 1y ago
  True, but does that mean the solution is to force the starvation because their choice to alleviate it was insufficiently willing for our tastes? At least they’ll starve with two kidneys, and we hope the would-be kidney recipient can get by on dialysis a while longer? By all means let’s engineer a world where people are never faced with crappy choices. But people are living in the present, not the glorious future: Taking away the choice in this case doesn’t seem to fix the situation, and deprives people of a benefit they’d accept if you let them choose.
  - croes 1y ago
    But laying the cornerstone for a dystopian future doesn‘t help either. By your logic we shouldn’t fight child labor or drug trafficking. All that feeds people too.
  - keybored 1y ago
    > True, but does that mean the solution is to force the starvation because their choice to alleviate it was insufficiently willing for our tastes? At least they’ll starve with two kidneys, and we hope the would-be kidney recipient can get by on dialysis a while longer? That’s not what anyone who objects to this thinks and you know it. Anyone who objects to people selling away something dear because they are poor want (1) those people to not be poor and (2) those other people to not prey on them. People are outraged when people are forced to drink dirty water—they are not outraged at desperate people for drinking dirty rainwater. It’s a false choice. > By all means let’s engineer a world where people are never faced with crappy choices. But people are living in the present, not the glorious future: Taking away the choice in this case doesn’t seem to fix the situation, and deprives people of a benefit they’d accept if you let them choose. I’m Sam Altman and I approve this message.

Keyframe 1y ago

not that it makes it any better, but you're saying that like it's impossible to do now what you're describing. you're already in the system, whether you like it or not, both public and private one(s).

0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago

Is that any different from reality now? At least they throw a few dollars at you for it. I suspect that my face has been recorded and linked to my profile at several stores. Palantir or similar have probably scrapped all of the internet looking to link a face to an identity. Real ID just because fully required for domestic air travel.

hammock 1y ago
Has your eye been recorded at the store?
- ptero 1y ago
  What does a picture of your eye allow that fingerprints, face scans and other passport biometrics that have already been collected and linked do not? Honest question.
  - andy_ppp 1y ago
    Yes the government and or private companies don’t have a copy of my fingerprints and I’d honestly rather they didn’t have pictures of my face on record either. Just because we’ve become accustomed to these breaches of our privacy doesn’t mean they are good.
    - ptero 1y ago
      > Just because we’ve become accustomed to these breaches of our privacy doesn’t mean they are good. 100% this. The fact that the governments and corporations have enough information at their fingertips to identify people from chance photos is, IMO, not good. However that genie is out of the bottle and there is no way to get it back in. Cameras are ubiquitous and one can get a decent quality fingerprint from store camera footage. Any time I do eye exam the doctor takes an eye scan and uploads it somewhere. Passport biometrics are becoming required and most countries will match it with a face scan on border crossing. And this is just a tip of the iceberg. I would like to be wrong, but IMO the only solution to the government being able to track anyone they like (or, rather, do not like) is via legislation, not technology. And with various 3-letter agencies being routinely allowed special access "because security" this path is unlikely to be viable either. My 2c.

BurningFrog 1y ago

That train has already sailed. We can be identified and found in any number of ways already. Our kids will not imagine any other way. As you say, the future can become heaven or hell.