I get it, and I’m a bit cavalier myself about just taking a photo, and that’s historically been fine for personal use. The problem comes when companies aggregate that privilege. One of the interesting possibilities now available is simply removing all (non focused / designated) background humans from a photo, and it can be done on device these days. The tech could actually be used to preserve privacy, but where’s the profit?

The mechanisms to stop mass surveillance by governments are in place, warrants and so forth, but they are now able to simply buy it from private concerns which makes it OK legally apparently (until challenged). Perhaps there needs to be an expectation of significant consequences for flaunting ethics before legal precedents have been set, things change fast, but decency is still recognizable.

Journalists should also have a pass, poor bastards have been used hard in the last few decades. I’d suggest making it a formal, protected profession like doctors or psychologists, with strict ethical guidelines, like it almost was once. Allow whistleblowers and others with information for the public good temporary protection under the same guidelines.

All in all, it makes little difference to simply post online, but I do appreciate the chance to test my ideas and formulate something coherent from the inchoate rage I feel at the unchecked abuses I see daily. Thanks for your input, here’s hoping you, I, and others get the chance to put these ideas to use.

Seems pretty reasonable, with extraordinary powers comes extraordinary oversight. Everything gets destroyed as a matter of course unless legal proceedings ensue within a proscribed time frame, unless third party approval is given. Do you disagree? Do you have a better option? I’m just scratching around, appreciate the input.

For one state, you’ve got 50, right? Precedent like this declares open season. Suck it Meta.

They made hundreds and 16 worked (when synthesized by humans), seems stochastic to me. Humans do better to my knowledge (I’m out of touch but do have a relevant background). It’s based on LLM architecture (using genes and proteins in place of language), also known as a stochastic parrot, which was the sense in which I was using it.

I don’t deny it’s a scary technology, more because of the likelihood of mistakes (or as AI companies like to say, ‘hallucinations’, anthropomorphising as advertising) than any intention.

As usual with this type of technology you need to be competent with the field before it becomes a force multiplier, and those people could already make viruses, and have been able to for a long time. For example, one of the previous stochastic methods was randomized mutation in a specific environment.

I’d say it’d take a fair bit more, but it’s a risk, hence

double down on the manufacturing security

We’ve been living with the human capability to make and deliver super lethal viruses for what 40+ years and have methods in place to control it at the manufacturing level. ‘genAI’ is way too incompetent at this stage to achieve both a functional virus and evade those manufacturing safeguards and likely LLMs always will be, too stochastic. This is quite aligned to look how scary our AI is marketing.

That said, virus is one of the studied extinction event scenarios for a true AGI/ASI. It would be prudent to double down on the manufacturing security, or, you know, go Butlerian at least until we have an excellent grasp on alignment (IMO you can’t align an ASI, it’s literally beyond our comprehension). But capitalism’s gonna capitalist, existential threat be damned, just look at global warming.

Oh yeah man Police departments all over the country will love that rule about always obtaining consent to record.

Yeah, good point. An exception here would be good, also not requiring consent to film police (and other actors for state violence) should be baked in.

If you see someone vandalizing / stealing private surveillance cameras in public areas : No You Didn’t.

While I get them in public transit it’s still a slippery slope, and could be manually triggered by a (physically protected) driver in needed situation. Then there’s the whole everyone with a phone camera uploading them to Google / Apple (and consequently three letter agencies as well) which is the granddaddy of privacy destruction.

At some point, when this all shakes out as the terrible idea many have already suggested, we need to require third party consent for visual recording (like for audio in some jurisdictions) and was once required for profitable publication. If that ends up with a lot more landscapes and art photography online, I’ll consider it a win.