Ofc you "can" - in principle.
Is any of this currently being done, however?
Companies aren't obligated to disclose the training process. So, we can't tell. Until, in the matter of months, it is available, accessible and almost impossible to regulate. And every company will start using it to not fall behind.
There's a _long_ list of unlawful things that are technically possible, sometimes trivial even. Only _because_ they are possible in the first place, are there laws against them. This process seems slow compared to a human lifespan, but lots of terrible things people used to do got outlawed eventually.
There are three reasons:
- once it's widespread - it's a standard (targeted ads, cookie tracking, SEO)
- we'd need a lot of infrastructure to track all the data recorded, where it goes, how it is processed, etc. etc.. And if a big company is caught.. they'll pay fines for being caught and let away to continue the same shady practices, as we have seen with privacy scandals at Facebook.
> ...but lots of terrible things people used to do got outlawed eventually.
That's the third reason - surveillance is evil and bad, but it will never be advertised as that. It will be something good and convenient with a surveillance as a side effect, similar to social media and smart appliances.
Maybe, I am just too pessimistic and you're right with: 'This process seems slow compared to a human lifespan'.
You just need to punish the people using the data. If you can then track down where they got the data from, that's a bonus. And if you can track down where those second ones got their data from, that's an extra bonus. But everything after the people using it is optional.
I know in America this would be painted as an attack on the Holy Minority and therefore no one will be allowed to discuss it without being branded a blasphemer, so I'm curious what people on here think.
I feel like businesses should have this right, but I worry about slippery slopes. It might start with shoplifters, and 20 years later when 99% of stores are owned by the same 3 megacorps, people could get banned for wrongthink and for shaping the political views of the masses at large. Kinda like what they do now on social media.
Well, I don't think the "bad character" thing is there either. The problem is with these statements is they are lies that contain some truth. Cameras exist. AI to try and detect basic facial expressions exists. Mapping from basic facial expressions to underlying emotions exists. But I doubt many people are trying this, except as a way to justify a marketing budget (we want to push our smile numbers from 8% to 8.2% - give me $5m for my marketing department). And I have never heard of anything connecting "liar" or "bad character" to AI detection.
> And if you wanted to cross-check a face against a database of known liars, the entire statement is true.
Filling in the gaps with technically true statements should not justify the emotional change in you this sort of article seems to be trying to engender. It's pretty much not true, and the bits that might be true and honest - e.g. emotion detection - doesn't work well, and is probably not deployed anywhere.
As for using facial recognition to replace time cards, and replace photos of banned customers - sure? Might work?
That's not the thing I was talking about.
> Probably a little bit before it’s actually capable of doing it reliably.
I think you said that already?
And in fact you yourself already hedged that this probably is happening, “ But I doubt many people are trying this, except as a way to justify a marketing budget.” Aka you believe that at least some people are already attempting this.
This is getting painfully repetitious, but that was about facial recognition, not deciding if someone's a liar or is of bad character via AI.
> Identifying protesters isn't the same as an AI filming you and deciding if you are of bad character.
Same comment.
Am I reading this right now?
It may be. Not that it will be.
> we agree AI-based polygraphing will exist
We didn't mention lie detecting, but no - I was saying liar detection, which was the thing from the article, also sounds like fear-mongering.
> you don’t think AI-identify-bad-intentions-button exists currently
Yes.
> therefore we are supposed to doubt that AI is a major surveillance hazard
No, that's a category error. "Major" and "hazard" are far too vague to decide upon. Will AI be used in surveillance in some capacity? Of course - it likely has been for decades, depending on how you define AI. But implying that you'll walk into a shop and be classified as a liar based on a video feed is not right. I understand websites need emotion for clicks, but I don't think it's right to do it this way.
I don't remember the name, but a defense company demonstrated a facial recognition software which identified the face while the person is running in the dark, in very low light (IIRC akin to a poorly lit harbor-like environment). The camera was shooting from the side, so the system saw the face for a couple of frames.
So, a small camera mounted to the entrance turnstile of a supermarket with a fairly lit environment can scan almost everyone going in. Are you wearing a balaclava in the store? It's also suspicious in most cases.
Hadn't there been similar systems for phone conversations, based on voice stress analysis? I totally expect this to move to AI based systems, including audio and visual data, if it hasn't been done already. (Also, if a person has been tagged as "liar" – truthfully or not – in any customer history file, this data will be available, as soon as a face is matched.)
There are (and have been for many years of development, although I do not know about deployment) methods for identifying people as criminals.
Not a technology, but the "science" has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology?useskin=timeless#Ap...
> “You know, you walk past a facial recognition camera that’s instrumented with pseudo-scientific emotion recognition, and it produces data about you, right or wrong, that says ‘you are happy, you are sad, you have a bad character, you’re a liar, whatever.’
While I'm not aware of any technology that claims to classify faces as liars the rest of the statement is broadly true. And if you wanted to cross-check a face against a database of known liars, the entire statement is true.
According to https://www.cyberlink.com/faceme/insights/articles/363/smart... "It can be difficult to discern how consumers feel about a retail experience, or about the products they are buying or avoiding. Facial recognition can help with this by assessing and charting emotions: happy, sad, angry, surprised, indifferent, etc."
It also says "By cross-checking everyone who enters the store against a database of identified shoplifters and unruly customers, facial recognition can detect and deter repeat offenders" and "Using facial recognition, retailers can know precisely when an employee arrives, takes breaks, and leaves for the day"
Personally a lot of this technology seems pretty doubtful to me - don't shoplifters wear hats to keep their faces off CCTV? And every 'emotion recognition' system demo I've seen has used faces with emotions so ridiculously exaggerated they look like they belong in a youtube thumbnail.