You gave a true but irrelevant answer.

When someone says they are not making contracts with Flock that is ALWAYS bullshit. It is an executive telling you what they did yesterday, not what they are doing tomorrow. You are looking at the middlemen who always lie, not the top dog.

Getting them to say things is worthless, not matter what they say.

The top dog are judges and legislatures that interpret makes laws not local councils talking about their current contracts.

When they speak, they talk about what is legal and illegal, not specific businesses. When they outlaw Flock, they outlaw all of their competitors.

As for RING, that is an entirely different business than Flock. The far majority of people that object to "FLOCK" will not put in RING cameras.

When we complain about Flock we are really complaining about all of the surveillance business, not just Flock.

It's like saying I ran out of Kleenex instead of tissues. Kleenex has come to mean any tissue product designed for the nose and it is easier to say kleenex rather tissue for the nose.

Try telling someone how they are wrong rather than simply stating it is wrong.

Currently I know that a single person out of 8 billion disagrees withme.

That happens if I just say the Earth is a sphere, not flat.

Humans use multiple methods of thought.
Faith: (Appeal to Authority)
Science: (Scientific Method)
Formal Logic (If x then y)
Bias: (Appeal to previous examples)

While AI is built on Formal Logic, it does not use it. Instead it uses Bias entirely. It has no faith and does not understand or use the scientific method.

One city found that Flock was incorrect 71% of the times it identified felonies. But they did claim they installed the flock cameras using non-standard methods to avoid certain privacy concerns.

Flock likes to claim a 99+% accuracy under 'ideal' concerns.

1) I have no children.
2) I was very specific about Asia being a very different culture.
3) I have seen several studies that indicate most abusers come from entitled families and were not themselves abused as a child.
4) You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to call other's opinion's "nonsense"

People want to have sex. They want children. A low birthrate means there are systematic issues that are stopping it from happening.

Most of the world has a significant cost factor. Raising a child is very expensive. Frankly, I think that the government should pay for minimum pre-natal care as well as basic birth costs. It is in our government's best interests for the children to be born as healthy as possible.

But I do not know if that is the main problem in Singapore. Asia is a radically different culture from ours.
In Korea the problem is a culture of work over family. but that might be the same in Singapore.

Yes, AI programmed by large corporations, are biased in favor of the company that build them.

You use Gemini (made by Googled) it will favor Youtube (owned by Google) videos over other content.

And yes, it will push the political beliefs of Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Sundar Pichai.

They try to be subtle, but the bias is there if you look for it.

We need to be able to jail the morons that let this situation develop, not merely sue them.

Why?

Because the people in charge think they will always have enough money to be sued.

Note, as others have mentioned, this is not a training problem, it is an air gap problem.

That is, no one trying to develop software that hacks other software should be allowed to put it on the internet. It needs to be developed on air gapped computers that physically cannot get to the internet.

This also means that 'agents' should have the same rules. If you cannot ensure your agents do not attempt to hack software, then your agents should not be allowed out of your computer.

1) TikTok did not manipulate all WLW into thinking it is OK. They had maybe one case of success. I admit their are idiots out there - in both white and black, liberal and conservative, male and female. The existence of one idiot does not mean the majority of people are morons. Democracy expects there to be more intelligent people than morons. If this is not true, Democracy would fail even without AI.

2) People have been manipulating idiots for thousands of years, having AI do it also does not change anything.

3) They did not convince normal people, they convinced idiots. You cannot convince normal people of shit like that.

4) You are over-estimating the power of manipulation. People are smarter than you think they are. Granted they are also dumber then I think they are, but the happy middle has proven sufficient so far to negate the manipulation problem.

I can see idiots using AI to make ads and do other Candidate Manager type jobs.

I can also see a few idiots using AI to decide how to vote. But:
Straight Party voters will not use AI in the general election.
Less involved party members may use it in the Primary, but the motivated will know who to vote for and ignore AI.

Most independents who do not care will not vote.
Independents who are motivated will know who to vote for and ignore AI.

In other words, I see AI as having a minimal effect among those that will vote but who are not very motivated. Maybe 1-2%

That may affect close elections, but not the big stuff.

I mean, really. How many "force"s are we going to end up with ?

Not even clear whether this "Force" is going to support/defend AI or defend us from AI.

Which is probably the point. He wants to sound like he is doing something without actually telling us what he is doing.

That way he can declare it a success no matter what happens.