Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Employers do this all the time. They often use cameras to monitor employee productivity. As employees if we don’t like it we’re certainly free to seek employment somewhere else. So I wouldn’t consider that being controlled, I would say that it’s more like consensual observation....To monitor employee behavior, activity, and/or production in any workplace. Such technology may be useful for management, but it fails the test, because it pushes real humans to behave a certain way - thus "controlling" us.
I’m sitting in a commercial vehicle with one of those right now as I do everyday by my own choice. I don’t like it, I’d like to be free to take a drink from my coffee cup while I’m driving, but by agreeing to take the job knowing the expectations of the company I chose to comply with those expectations. Nobody controlled me in my decision....Driver facing cameras inside company vehicles are a control violation, because the modern ones detect how many times you yawn, and they check your eye movements... This technology forces drivers to behave a certain way while driving, which is not assisting the driver, but rather controlling the drivers behavior. So it fails the test.
My Eufy cameras in my house use AI to detect humans rather than just motion which is pretty helpful in protecting my family while we’re at sleep at night.I would be interested in how acceptable it would be if AI were to target pre-crime like the humans did in Minority report. i am not saying we would convict on that, but they could be detained for a brief time to prevent crime. if AI was right just 90% of the time, would it be worth it?
Yes, I understand that, but the thing is, laws can be passed that prevent eavesdropping in the workplace, or even in the public if standards can be agreed upon and put into place.Employers do this all the time. They often use cameras to monitor employee productivity. As employees if we don’t like it we’re certainly free to seek employment somewhere else. So I wouldn’t consider that being controlled, I would say that it’s more like consensual observation.
They’re a long way from having AI controlled robots out on the streets. AI requires hundreds of thousands of GPUs which won’t fit into an human sized robot, and at present we don’t have a wireless signal that can carry the vast amount of data fast enough for them to be controlled remotely. Personally I’m hoping that there’s a technological ceiling that prevents this from ever being a possibility. But bigger robots like the ED 209 from Robocop might be capable of containing enough GPU s at some point.Nope, not those specific type.
When I saw the topic title, I immediately thought about giving some A.I. robots some cannons, swords, and machine guns. That’s just a great idea.(sarcasm intended) Or make some suicide bomber bots to take out my enemies muhaha.
Never mind the hacker-bots, sex-bots, and drug mule hauling bots of the future. How about an abortion robot A.I.? That sounds like about the worst use case possible.
Tunneling bot for prison escapes, remote A.I. helicopter for the same…there’s a lot of criminal potential for A.I. that hasn’t been explored yet, mostly because we don’t have gun-carrying humanoids yet. Once we do, the sky is the limit.
Yes, because we need our jobs to feed our families. But that doesn't make the practice 'right'.I’m sitting in a commercial vehicle with one of those right now as I do everyday by my own choice. I don’t like it, I’d like to be free to take a drink from my coffee cup while I’m driving, but by agreeing to take the job knowing the expectations of the company I chose to comply with those expectations. Nobody controlled me in my decision.
As much as I hate the inconvenience, I wouldn’t push against it because I don’t see it as a bad thing. I understand that the purpose of the camera is to promote safety and productivity which as a Christian I have no problem with. As long as I do my job in a safe and productive manner as I should, then I have no reason to be worried about what the camera is recording.Yes, I understand that, but the thing is, laws can be passed that prevent eavesdropping in the workplace, or even in the public if standards can be agreed upon and put into place.
Wouldn't you prefer to be free from that? And if so, why wouldn't we want to stop it? What's the downside?
Another thing about these cameras is that if you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing, as a driver you can actually use that camera footage to prove it. They can come in very handy for dispelling false accusations, especially when there’s an accident and someone is lying about what actually took place.Yes, I understand that, but the thing is, laws can be passed that prevent eavesdropping in the workplace, or even in the public if standards can be agreed upon and put into place.
Wouldn't you prefer to be free from that? And if so, why wouldn't we want to stop it? What's the downside?
But thing is, as a Christian I *do* have a problem with it. I don't want to be treated like a child, or even worse, like a common tool. I consider myself as being in the image of God, and I expect to be treated with the respect that I deserve as a human.As much as I hate the inconvenience, I wouldn’t push against it because I don’t see it as a bad thing. I understand that the purpose of the camera is to promote safety and productivity which as a Christian I have no problem with. As long as I do my job in a safe and productive manner as I should, then I have no reason to be worried about what the camera is recording.
That's not true, actually. The driver facing one's are exclusively meant to shift blame onto you personally, and not the company's insurance, if the AI sees your eyes weren't where they're supposed to be, and you got into a wreck, then you will be personally responsible for all the damages - out of your own pocket.Another thing about these cameras is that if you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing, as a driver you can actually use that camera footage to prove it. They can come in very handy for dispelling false accusations, especially when there’s an accident and someone is lying about what actually took place.
No that’s not true at all, I can be held liable by DOT as far as fines if I’ve broken a law but as far as being financially responsible for paying for damages I can’t be held responsible.That's not true, actually. The driver facing one's are exclusively meant to shift blame onto you personally, and not the company's insurance, if the AI sees your eyes weren't where they're supposed to be, and you got into a wreck, then you will be personally responsible for all the damages - out of your own pocket.
...So it's not 100% in your favor, if that's what you're thinking.
And the cameras they install in trucks have a front facing camera and a camera facing the driver all in one unit. I’ve never seen a camera system in a truck with a camera only facing the driver. The one installed on my truck also includes the rear camera in the recording as well as the speed, acceleration, and braking are all recorded on a graph in the software in real time. So when something happens they know exactly how fast you were going and exactly when you hit the brakes because that information is synced with the video.That's not true, actually. The driver facing one's are exclusively meant to shift blame onto you personally, and not the company's insurance, if the AI sees your eyes weren't where they're supposed to be, and you got into a wreck, then you will be personally responsible for all the damages - out of your own pocket.
...So it's not 100% in your favor, if that's what you're thinking.
The other person could accuse you of texting on your phone and the camera will prove whether you were or not.That's not true, actually. The driver facing one's are exclusively meant to shift blame onto you personally, and not the company's insurance, if the AI sees your eyes weren't where they're supposed to be, and you got into a wreck, then you will be personally responsible for all the damages - out of your own pocket.
...So it's not 100% in your favor, if that's what you're thinking.
Oh, that's what they always say: "he was probably texting or on his phone"... But in court, if you're consistently honest under oath, there's little chance such an accusation could ever be used against you anyways.The other person could accuse you of texting on your phone and the camera will prove whether you were or not.
So, if you were texting and driving and rear-ended someone during that time, you don't think the company's insurance provider could file a class action lawsuit against you showing the footage of that to a jury?No that’s not true at all, I can be held liable by DOT as far as fines if I’ve broken a law but as far as being financially responsible for paying for damages I can’t be held responsible.
Yup. I have them in my trucks too.And the cameras they install in trucks have a front facing camera and a camera facing the driver all in one unit. I’ve never seen a camera system in a truck with a camera only facing the driver. The one installed on my truck also includes the rear camera in the recording as well as the speed, acceleration, and braking are all recorded on a graph in the software in real time. So when something happens they know exactly how fast you were going and exactly when you hit the brakes because that information is synced with the video.
But thing is, as a Christian I *do* have a problem with it. I don't want to be treated like a child, or even worse, like a common tool. I consider myself as being in the image of God, and I expect to be treated with the respect that I deserve as a human.
Though I have never heard of that tech. It seems like solid evidence, plus there is no down side. If it was an innocent I doubt you would make a mistake. Ai could detect pre-crime based on probabilities but the accuracy would not be 100%. Some might find that acceptable. I suppose it might be if one just had to see a counselor, but if they were requiring onerous maeasures just because you showed up on AI's radar, then that would not be a society I would want to live in.My Eufy cameras in my house use AI to detect humans rather than just motion which is pretty helpful in protecting my family while we’re at sleep at night.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?