Omnipresent AI cameras will ensure good behavior, says Larry Ellison (1 Viewer)

[crazyyank]

What could possibly go wrong

"We’re going to have supervision," says billionaire Oracle co-founder Ellison.

"On Thursday, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison shared his vision for an AI-powered surveillance future during a company financial meeting, reports Business Insider. During an investor Q&A, Ellison described a world where artificial intelligence systems would constantly monitor citizens through an extensive network of cameras and drones, stating this would ensure both police and citizens don't break the law………"

See more details in attached article

 

[Loulit01]

I'm going to change my name to Winston Smith. Make things easier for Big Brother.

 

[NatMorton]

The interesting thing about all these cameras is that they watch the "good guys" (e.g. the police) as much as a the "bad guys."

 

[Allan]

What could possibly go wrong

"We’re going to have supervision," says billionaire Oracle co-founder Ellison.

"On Thursday, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison shared his vision for an AI-powered surveillance future during a company financial meeting, reports Business Insider. During an investor Q&A, Ellison described a world where artificial intelligence systems would constantly monitor citizens through an extensive network of cameras and drones, stating this would ensure both police and citizens don't break the law………"

See more details in attached article

China widely employs facial recognition cameras.

Although there are benefits to these types of systems (for example getting through an airport quicker) they do lend themselves out to abuse.

 

[Loulit01]

The interesting thing about all these cameras is that they watch the "good guys" (e.g. the police) as much as a the "bad guys."

Who's in charge of monitoring these cameras and taking action against the bad guys and the "good guy" police? Because if you expect the police to police the police, please.

 

[NatMorton]

Who's in charge of monitoring these cameras and taking action against the bad guys and the "good guy" police? Because if you expect the police to police the police, please.

Police already use body cameras extensively. The advantage of fixed surveillance cameras is that an individual cop doesn't have control of whether the camera on scene is on or off.

 

[Allan]

Who's in charge of monitoring these cameras and taking action against the bad guys and the "good guy" police? Because if you expect the police to police the police, please.

Another risk that is very real is identity theft. Let's say you get to the point where the software has in its database the matching names to faces of millions of Americans.

At some point the system will be hacked. It's inevitable. Instantly scammers can steal the identity of millions of people.

I've never posted my photo online and have declined when employers wanted to do so. But this system would take that right to privacy out of my hands.

 

[Mycroft]

Omnipresent AI cameras will ensure good behavior, says Larry Ellison​

I remember all the cameras in East Berlin back in the 80's. They ensured good behavior, too.

 

[ataraxia]

Who's in charge of monitoring these cameras and taking action against the bad guys and the "good guy" police? Because if you expect the police to police the police, please.

Maybe AI will do that too: like it’s hooked up to machine guns and rocket propelled grenade launchers.

You run a red light, and …BAM! You will feel the full force of the law. You won’t even know what hit ya. You are instantly vaporized before you or any humans even have time to process what just happened. Insta-justice.

None of these long drawn out court cases, and lawyers playing funny games, and potentially corrupt judges which can be bribed or make mistakes, etc, etc…

 

[NatMorton]

Another risk that is very real is identity theft. Let's say you get to the point where the software has in its database the matching names to faces of millions of Americans.

At some point the system will be hacked. It's inevitable. Instantly scammers can steal the identity of millions of people.

I've never posted my photo online and have declined when employers wanted to do so. But this system would take that right to privacy out of my hands.

And there's the unfortunate reality that facial recognition software has a higher error rate for people with darker skin. While there was credibility early on that the problem was biased training data, these systems still face a basic physics problem: darker colored surfaces reflect less light than do lighter colored surfaces, and cameras work off of reflected light. All else being equal, in a captured image, dark skinned facial features will always have less resolution than light skinned features.

 

[Gaius46]

Police already use body cameras extensively. The advantage of fixed surveillance cameras is that an individual cop doesn't have control of whether the camera on scene is on or off.

True enough but even when the video is available there have been too many cases of unions/management trying to suppress the video, or releasing edited versions or allowing the cops to see the video first giving them an opportunity to "get their story straight" for it to be as effective a tool as we would have hoped.

It has been useful in many cases but the system is still flawed.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The interesting thing about all these cameras is that they watch the "good guys" (e.g. the police) as much as a the "bad guys."

Hmm… will the AI (pretend to?) know the difference?

 

[Gaius46]

Just because you can do something it doesn't mean that you should.

Reality is people are people. We knowingly or unwittingly commit small offenses all the time. We act like idiots all the time. That is the nature of humans. Do you really want to live in a world where your every move is watched and analyzed by someone/something? I sure as hell don't.

 

[Napoleon]

His vision? What he described is the plot of the Netflix series Omniscient.

 

[Irredentist]

The interesting thing about all these cameras is that they watch the "good guys" (e.g. the police) as much as a the "bad guys."

That sounds like an excellent way for the state to ensure behavioral compliance from their employees and citizens. People will act differently if they know they are constantly being watched.

 

[multivita-man]

What could possibly go wrong

"We’re going to have supervision," says billionaire Oracle co-founder Ellison.

"On Thursday, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison shared his vision for an AI-powered surveillance future during a company financial meeting, reports Business Insider. During an investor Q&A, Ellison described a world where artificial intelligence systems would constantly monitor citizens through an extensive network of cameras and drones, stating this would ensure both police and citizens don't break the law………"

See more details in attached article

Most of these Silicon Valley types are finally exposed for what they are. Sociopathic autocrats.

 

[crazyyank]

Maybe AI will do that too: like it’s hooked up to machine guns and rocket propelled grenade launchers.

You run a red light, and …BAM! You will feel the full force of the law. You won’t even know what hit ya. You are instantly vaporized before you or any humans even have time to process what just happened. Insta-justice.

None of these long drawn out court cases, and lawyers playing funny games, and potentially corrupt judges which can be bribed or make mistakes, etc, etc…

Sounds like the movie "Judge Dredd"

Judge Dredd (film)

 

[Allan]

Most of these Silicon Valley types are finally exposed for what they are. Sociopathic autocrats.

Many CEOs are sociopaths.

And I mean literally, clinically sociopaths.

Snakes in Suits - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[OrphanSlug]

There is no way this ends well.

 

[Helix]

I don't support a surveillance society. That being said, many of us voluntarily carry tracking and spying devices around 24/7/365, so you'd have to go considerably off the grid to experience real privacy at this point.

 

[multivita-man]

Many CEOs are sociopaths.

And I mean literally, clinically sociopaths.

Snakes in Suits - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the system self-selects for that sort of personality. It's hyper-competitive. The goal isn't to promote group welfare but rather the profitability and survival of this non-living corporate person, the value of which is used to enrich themselves and their shareholders.

 

[Allan]

I think the system self-selects for that sort of personality. It's hyper-competitive. The goal isn't to promote group welfare but rather the profitability and survival of this non-living corporate person, the value of which is used to enrich themselves and their shareholders.

Bingo.

I've worked with people like that. Look into their eyes, if they deign to make eye contact, and there's no soul.

 

[multivita-man]

Bingo.

I've worked with people like that. Look into their eyes, if they deign to make eye contact, and there's no soul.

I think some privately-held companies (smaller ones, particularly) that focus on the value of the good or service they're pitching can be more flexible and perhaps a little more human, but once it goes public and becomes all about quarterly earnings and guidance/forecasts for the rest of the year, that's pretty much it.

 

[Gaius46]

That sounds like an excellent way for the state to ensure behavioral compliance from their employees and citizens. People will act differently if they know they are constantly being watched.

Behavioral compliance. Are we drones or humans?

 

[Allan]

I think some privately-held companies (smaller ones, particularly) that focus on the value of the good or service they're pitching can be more flexible and perhaps a little more human, but once it goes public and becomes all about quarterly earnings and guidance/forecasts for the rest of the year, that's pretty much it.

Yeah I worked for a large Canadian company and our most senior leaders were competent but also warm and friendly. It had a lot to do with the fact they all started at the front line so had a great deal of empathy.

We were bought by a US Fortune 500 and things changed, drastically. The Canadian executives eventually retired and were replaced by Americans. It wasn't fun.

But as harsh as they were they did deliver - substantial growth in market share and profitability.

Big successful companies are nice to invest in, not so much fun as an employer.