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.
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?