Opposite, but not equal.

Listening to a podcast recently, there was an ad for "Plaud", which is apparently a small device that records audio, and using AI, can be used to list the action points from a meeting, etc. The ad noted that you can asking it about meetings in the past.

There was a recent post on Slashdot about Flock cameras, and the backlash from people who dislike them.

With the spread of all these devices that record audio and video, it is going to become quite difficult to "opt out" of being recorded for privacy reasons. It will also be difficult to keep personal infromation private, even with the best of intentions.

In 20 years time, particularly in cities, or workplaces, we might find that nothing we do or say is private.

Having said that, I suspect there will be enough people who feel some discomfort about this to push back. Is there a legal or practical method of doing this?

I take your point, but it is important not to lose sight of how great the advances in AI have been in the last few years.

In the 1980s AI was all the rage, and while academics were excited about what it could now do, and what the future might hold, and how things had moved on since the 1960s, I don't think anyone thought that passing the Turing Test was likely to happen anytime soon. There was some tentative research into Neural Networks, but the hardware resources were so primitive that the possibilities in this area were largely in the realm of the imagination.

A system like ChatGPT or Gemini, if taken back in a time machine to a university Computer Science department of the 1980s would be seen with absolute amazement. Arguably, this field has advanced more than any other in Computer Science.

So yes, there is (still) a gap between the frightening autonomous swarms of AGI that are described, and the AI we experience in the Chat GPT models provided to the general public, but the fact that the recent advances have been so astonishing should at least give us pause.

Hmm... I see what you mean.
Although to be precise, the choice is probably A followed by B, or B.

I'm hanging out for the "iPhone Scroll".

What do you find yourself generally using the larger screen for? Is it watching videos, editing documents, or simply being able to see two apps open at the same time?

I like the idea of having something as portable as a phone, but which can be opened so that I could watch a film on a larger screen, but the premium for this advantage is a bit too high for me.

... A bit like being called the fullbacks of chess.

Remember how Carl Sagan used to place the cold war, with all its spending on nuclear weapons, and the danger they posed to humanity, in the context of the vast cosmos, making it seem petty.

He was able to make that case without giving up, without losing his temper or becoming exasperated. Simply by describing the bigger picture he was able to insert wisdom into the discussion. And the weight of his rhetoric made it difficult for anyone to return with a counterargument defending realpolitik.

America - Do you have any more where he came from?

"We shouldn't slow down or they might win".

Whether it be AI, or reducing heat-trapping emissions, the argument loses validity if the result is catastrophe for all.
Picture a car racing towards a cliff. The car has two accelerator pedals. The occupants are playing "chicken". Neither wants to take their foot off the pedal and lose the game of chicken.

I'm going to have a stab at what country you're from.
No, no - Don't give me a hint. Let me guess...

The Canadian government might choose to weigh up the risk (of being dependent on US software and infrastructure) against the cost of migration, but aside from the actual business case aspect of decision making, the Canadian government might choose an non-US option simply as a means of taking a stance.

We have no choice but to increase the saluting of flags and singing of patriotic songs.

Neither would I like to live in a society where the immediate response to irritation is violence. It implies a certain impotence.

Indeed.

But I'd go one step further. Crime aside, I wouldn't like to live in a society where "having something to hide" was considered intrinsically bad, and something that must be automatically unveiled.

Having a wide-spread network of cameras recording what everyone does may well catch more criminals.

But are you ok with the side effects? A system like this also makes public things that people do which are not criminal but might be embarrasing. Does a 17-year old girl want the world to know that she is going out for a walk in the evening with her new boyfriend? Does a woman want her stalker to have access to her routine? Does a young gay man want to be "outed" before he is ready?

The issue of taking photos or video of others in public is an interesting one. The pros and cons are many. It has generally been acceptable to take a photo of a stranger in a public place. There is an assumption that by being in a public place you consent to having your photo taken. And such a photo can sometimes be great art. But we can also understand the potential discomfort of the person having their photo taken. And when that street photography morphs into a network of 24/7 video cameras, that discomfort intensifies to the point where some people are willing to vandalise those cameras.

Current US law permits photographing a stranger if they are in a public place, but if I was to constantly video a stranger, following them wherever they went, I could potentially be violating harassment laws. I wonder if this Flock surveillance system is at any risk of a lawsuit along those lines...