Even if it would be truly anonymized, once combined with th other vast amounts od data Google has means it is possible to tie the anonymized data to specific, or a plausible group of people.A bad anonymizing process would be a far more likely culprit, but by analyzing patterns, something AI and computers are good at, could yield interesting results.

The problem is, people have been over-trusting technology since technology was invented. Consider the '70s when corporate representatives were so fond on the phrase "But the computer says...". Yes, you could hear the bold italics in their voice, as if it was the infallible final word on everything.

If THE COMPUTER says you shoplifted, rest assured, some dolt in a suit will treat that like God's own word booming from the clouds.

But every person who sets foot in that store probably "kinda" looks like someone who has shoplifted. And since shoplifters look like everybody else, everyone COULD be a shoplifter.

More interesting is if 1 in five thousand is also a shoplifter, that means 1 fals positve and one real one, so a 50/50 chance of being wrong when an identificattion is made.

"Something which does not enter your body cannot be addictive."

Yet men are addicted to sex quite often, yet nothing enters their body (unless they're gay.)

Moron.

How about that 1.6M against an old lady because her kid downloaded music online? Was that reasonable? Fuck no it was not.

So shut the fuck up, judge, and deal with it.

We already knew Thomas was deep in the hands of telecoms - this shows how deep.

Many have voted with hairspray and a sawzall.

It's worse, they don't have to go sentient at all. The black death wasn't sentient but it wiped out whole towns anyway.

Rogue agents with no awareness have already demonstrated that they will act against any entity with a conflicting goal, including humans.

IIRC, more than one lawyer has gotten in to hot water because of AI hallucinations in legal briefs. They sign their name to those, they are responsible.

The legal process is adversarial but it is not anything goes. Fabricating evidence and perjury are out of bounds for example.

I think this falls into that category.

OTOH, if the court DID use AI to make decisions, the whole court would invalidate itself, so there is some ethical wiggle room.

AI should have no agency at all. It should only advise the human in the loop who is actually responsible for what happens.

He'll have to cut back on, well, nothing.

It's called amateur porn...

Independent of the sleazy nature of the glass, process patents have gotten out of hand and need to be reigned in. People have made highlight reels for years, this is just an automation tool that certainly could be protected rationally by copyright without a claim to have invented automating highlight reels. I mean, AI could already do it with the right prompt and training.