krisbolton

Check out The China Syndrome. I went on a never-seen-before 70s binge a while back and watch Colossus, Parallax, China Syndrome and Three Days of the Condor. Odd mix, but good.

Disposable income and being in the 1% are entirely different things.

This is important to realise and defend. Super intelligence is not a collection of human-level intellect smarter than you. Super intelligence is an intellect surpassing any human. That's a important distinction for AI alignment discussion now and in the future. The books 'Superintelligence' (978-0199678112) and 'The Coming Wave' (978-1529923834) are worth reading.

It would be good to know more about the detection mechanism, if it wasn't computer vision it may well have been audio monitoring - a kid is perhaps more likely to brag / talk about what they're doing, which gets flagged to a live monitor who can intervene in real time.

This just isn't true... you've heard of "no comment" right? And the ability for the police to invoke the requirement for you to provide your PIN is behind the tests of specific legislation. You're not automatically required to provide it.

This. It's all within a democratic and legal framework, from GDPR to organisational policies. The source is the police themselves informing the public of the trial. The actual camera setup is bright yellow in the middle of the concourse, it's not hidden. They haven't hidden this technology, a private company hasn't deployed this technology. As citizens you have some control. It's probably not perfect, but there's humans in the loop. You have recourse to complain, to write to your PM, to take a different route (because they are pre-warning you). This IS democracy.

Fair challenge, you're right that there's nothing sophisticated about this type of activity, but if you look at Lazarus activity this is their ttp. I mentioned TraderTraitor, go look them up (that sounds terse, it's not meant to be). They stole a couple of hundred million dollars in the past 6 months. They're not particularly sophisticated in terms of ttp, but because they're a nation-state actor they it's an entirely different threat model than script kiddie.

Attribution is hard, but if we're talking about defending, there's little cost to assuming Lazarus-style threat actor.

100%. I can't find it now, but someone last month posted a similar story on HN. The threat actor had stolen someone's GitHub account and altered their otherwise legitimate looking repo. They'll expend a lot of effort in order to masquerade and trick you. TraderTraitor is another good DPRK example.

Anyone reading - if you're ever a victim, worth reporting to your national CERT and your org. The CERT can provide advice, it's useful for their threat intel, and your org can check their systems. You might not be the end target.

Not to get into an internet argument, but the entire premise of what you say is false -- and I'm not just saying that to argue.

1. The intent was and is categorically not for the review of CCTV or any evidence to be specifically carried out by humans.

2. Law can't - and isn't suppose to - account for specific future technology, that's future prediction which is impossible.

What you mean is you disagree. What you mean is you believe a human should be involved in video evidence review. I'm not sure why, because it's clearly an area of waste. Maybe you have reservations about accuracy. Then what you mean is you want the technology to be at a certain level of accuracy before it is used in practice.

I suspect you do believe the accuracy isn't good enough, but you've forgotten the layered controls in English law. People are tried by other people. An AI tool that speeds up triage isn't the judge or jury.

This wasn't ignored and your source corroborates the fact. It was front page news, there were two IPPC investigations, and an inquest. This is also an example from 2005. An odd choice to reference in a thread about Police use of AI.

Sounds like automation to me rather than 1984. 800 hours of video searched in 3 hours, hardly the destruction of democracy.

It'll be a legal thing. You're reporting on behalf of yourself / a legal entity, so another system or entity can't say for you. I get it, but it really is a waste of time.