←back to thread

569 points layer8 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.019s | source
Show context
ineedasername ◴[] No.45768131[source]
I’m continually astounded that so many people, faced with a societal problem, reflexively turn to “Hmmm, perhaps if we monitored and read and listened to every single thing that every person does, all of the time…”

As though it would 1) be a practical possibility and 2) be effective.

Compounding the issue is that the more technology can solve #1, the more these people fixate on it as the solution without regards to the lack of #2.

I wish there were a way, once and for all, to prevent this ridiculous idea from taking hold over and over again. If I could get a hold of such people when these ideas were in their infancy… perhaps I should monitor everything everyone does and watch for people considering the same as a solution to their problem… ah well, no, still don’t see how that follows logically as a reasonable solution.

replies(17): >>45768311 #>>45768758 #>>45768812 #>>45768845 #>>45768873 #>>45769030 #>>45769192 #>>45769801 #>>45769868 #>>45769961 #>>45770005 #>>45770264 #>>45770801 #>>45770827 #>>45771089 #>>45772424 #>>45776034 #
1. andersa ◴[] No.45768845[source]
> As though it would 1) be a practical possibility

Well that's kind of the thing. With AI it is. In theory, they can now monitor all of us at the same time on a scale never before thought possible. The time of "big brother has better things to do than monitor you specifically" is over.

replies(1): >>45770844 #
2. ineedasername ◴[] No.45770844[source]
I think the O^n problem of attention & memory means that with AI it still really isn’t all that possible either.
replies(1): >>45776887 #
3. 1718627440 ◴[] No.45776887[source]
Then are able to record everything now, they are able to add "AI" to it. The "AI" will tell them some result. They will prosecute based on that. The fact that "AI" isn't something that can reliable "monitor" people is something they won't care about.