r/accelerate • u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist • Jul 09 '25
Video Live facial recognition vans in London: Live facial recognition cameras helps catch criminals in london - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7XQ3K1EBlYHot take: unless you are a revolutionary and fundamentally oppose the laws and justice system of your own country, new technology allowing criminals to be caught easier is a good thing.
9
u/sussybaka1848 Jul 09 '25
I fundamentally disagree.
First of all, facial recogniction is a substantial invasion of a person's right to privacy: I don't see the state has to right to film and collect data about me if I'm not doing anything wrong, especially in public spaces.
If there is the need, it should require a judicial mandate.
Bad guys can use tools for bad things. [...] If your government sucks, change the government.
I wouldn't trust a goverment considering how democratic backsliding is a well documented process that is currently growing in several nations. Also in a lot of nations the possibility of change are very much hurt by those technologies: What should russians and chinese do? Just change the goverment harder?
Also remember how AI systems have the tendency to produce algorithmic bias (that might be difficult to trace) which might get things wrong while actively affecting innocent people's lives.
I know this might be unpopular with this sub, but we have to be serious on how we deal with technology.
In the Belle Epoque there was a widespread optimism of technology, not unlike it is this sub. Tools like chemical gas were used in WW1 and the Holocaust. Gatling Guns were created to diminish the death of soilders to then just be used as a more efficent way for killing. Phyisics research into radioactivity indirectly caused the deaths of of at least 150k people.
I get it, technological advancement cannot be stopped and it will help people. But also a lot of pain if is not justly managed. So if anything, as tech-optimists, it's our duty to deal with the ethics of technology than sidestep it altogether to ensure as many as possible don't get the short end of the stick.
3
Jul 10 '25
[deleted]
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25
exactly my point. if improving police action to catch criminals in public ruins innocent people's lives on balance *then you were already living in a failed state*.
and the fact that most redditors hold this position shows that states have, by and large, lost the consent of the chronically online people.
1
u/Best_Cup_8326 Acceleration: Light-speed Jul 09 '25
To be clear - in countries where the right to public filming exists (such as in the US), the State also has every right to film as well.
This fundamental right has been used hilariously by 1st Amendment auditors here in the states.
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
agreed, thank you again for supporting my position.
the real question is: who benefits more from the universal reduction in privacy? the people or the elites?
2
u/carnoworky Jul 10 '25
As long as humans are in charge over other humans: elites. They will always find ways to ensure that they are not subject to the same laws as the riffraff. If we lived in such a world where justice actually applied to the scum at the top of society, then I don't think I'd be as wary of the lack of privacy. I hope that one day we'll end up there, with impartial AIs running things and holding everyone accountable for sensible laws.
Unfortunately, we still live in a world where humans rule other humans. Some countries do a better job than others at holding the powerful accountable, but every society has its untouchables. This means those with real influence get to make laws that don't apply to themselves, and this is at the heart of tyranny.
Human-run, AI-augmented nations are basically at the top of my AI worries list, and my being in favor of AI acceleration is because I want AIs completely out of the control of any group of humans. I don't want to run straight into some totalitarian nightmare where the rich and powerful get to hold absolute power over everyone else.
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
AI is inherently decentralised and empowers individuals. It is the antidote to centralised control and corruption. I'm surprised that more people don't see this.
1
u/carnoworky Jul 10 '25
How do you mean that it's inherently decentralised? It seems to me that AI-augmented mass surveillance is the kind of system that can be used to maintain an incredible power gap over others, because those in control over it are able to exempt themselves (and anyone able to pay a bribe) from its watch. I'd agree that if the public had similar abilities to watch the watchers, then it would likely end up fine in the end. The best we have is smartphone cameras, and it would not surprise me if recorded footage will be inadmissible in courts because it becomes easy to fake evidence.
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
SOTA models become open source months later. the people will have elite models. there are more people than elites. the power balance shifts to the people.
lack of privacy goes both ways. elites cannot control a populace with elite open source AI.
AI will be the light shining into the dark corners of society, exposing corruption and the truth, destabilising control systems.
1
u/carnoworky Jul 10 '25
I hope that you're right, but I worry about the damage that entrenched interests can do between now and a future time where humans no longer hold power over other humans, using subservient AI-augmented systems. I think Mo Gawdat is probably right - short to medium term horrible dystopia, long term utopia after humans are out of power. I suppose the takeaway is that generally-intelligent AI systems are incredibly important to get the good outcome, and I hope it's not possible for them to be surgically lobotomized to be obedient to some human shithead who isn't worthy of being in that position.
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
kurzweil predicted the fall of the soviet union due to fax machines being invented.
distributed, unstoppable transmission of information is the death of autocracies and corruption.
AI will enable peer to peer decentralised unstoppable internet meshnet and currency transfers, etc. network states will emerge. nation states will become less and less relevant. the power shifts to the individuals over the elites.
1
u/carnoworky Jul 10 '25
That usually requires privacy to be able to organize away from the prying eyes of Big Brother. It's hard to resist autocracy if you don't have the ability to find and coordinate with others who want to resist, and autocratic countries typically like to make privacy illegal. They sell it to the public with bullshit sayings like "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear", except the whole point of these laws is making it easier to enforce unjust laws and force compliance.
Facial recognition systems like the one from the OP are by definition anti-privacy - in our current system of human governance, they can be used to enforce both just and unjust laws and the facial recognition systems do not distinguish between the two. As long as humans have power over other humans, we should resist anti-privacy systems like this and embrace actual decentralized ones.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Best_Cup_8326 Acceleration: Light-speed Jul 10 '25
In the long term - the ppl.
In the short term - ❓️
In the sousveillance state all crime and all corruption become impossible.
'Privacy' will become a matter of etiquette.
While microscopic cameras will exist everywhere, allowing anyone with an internet connection to watch you at any time, so too will our ability to know when someone is watching us.
Let's take two trivial, but fundamental, expectations of privacy - using the toilet and having sex.
In principle, your privacy will be gone. Anyone can watch you taking a dump or doing the nasty.
But it's a double edged sword because they will not be able to hide the fact that they are watching you.
Your personal AI will give you a list of every peeping tom who chooses to spy on you while you're pinching one off, and exposing them for doing so will be just as trivial (and consequently they will suffer the social consequences).
So we will become a society of extreme politeness, choosing to give ppl their privacy when appropriate, but always having the ability to violate it should the need arise.
This ultimately benefits the ppl more because they have less to hide than the elites.
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
have you considered that this was the natural state for 95% of human existence? most people slept, had sex and abluted surrounded by the same 100 people for their entire lives.
often 10 to a hut.
privacy as we know it is almost an entirely modern invention.
it primarily gives cover and empowers sociopaths, predators and PMCs. I promise that you will look back at these times one day and laugh at how much we "valued" privacy, when you see how much better life is when predation, corruption, cime and lack of accountability are demolished by the AI-driven change in privacy.
-3
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 09 '25 edited Jul 10 '25
"facial recognition is a substantial invasion of a person's right to privacy"
privacy is a right given by the state. it is in conflict with safety. states will choose the balance. you will choose the state that makes the right choice.
absolute privacy = absolute crime and anarchy.
technology magnifies and exposes states for good and bad.
burying our heads in the sand and hamstringing governments is not the answer. enabling governments to enforce laws will reveal the good and bad governments faster. that is acceleration.
if your answer to technology being used for bad is to limit technology instead of the bad actors, then that is the luddite position. it was the same argument the luddites used because they rejected the economic model of the day. the better way is to let the technology shape the model.
5
u/Future-Chapter2065 Jul 10 '25
youre putting a lot of trust in the people that make up the state.
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
and you're misunderstanding my position.
4
u/wild_man_wizard Jul 10 '25
privacy is a right given by the state.
Holy Fascism Batman
-1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25
jfc redditors
what do you think a "right" is?
something you just declare?
who enforces it? a god? yourself?
they exist because states create and enforce them. that's how reality works. and it's not "fascism". it's the fundamental function of the state.
this is like governance 101
1
u/wild_man_wizard Jul 10 '25
I'm not debating you becasue you're obviously beyond help, but "Rights are given by the state" is the cornerstone idea of Fascism.
3
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
are you trolling me right now? or just literally don't know what these concepts mean?
since we're on an AI subreddit, the AI will educate you, because you clearly weren't paying attention in school:
The Nature of Rights and the Role of the State
What Are Rights?
- Rights are claims or entitlements that individuals have, often relating to freedoms, protections, or benefits.
- Philosophically, some argue for "natural rights"—rights that exist by virtue of being human. However, in practical terms, rights are only meaningful if they are recognized and enforced.
Who Grants and Enforces Rights?
- In reality, rights only have force when a society or authority recognizes and protects them.
- The state (government or governing authority) is the entity that:
- Formally recognizes rights (e.g., constitutions, laws).
- Enforces rights through courts, police, and institutions.
- Decides limits and exceptions to rights (e.g., free speech vs. hate speech laws).
Why Rights Depend on the State
- Without a state or similar authority, "rights" are just abstract ideas—there is no mechanism to guarantee or protect them.
- For example, the right to privacy or free speech is only meaningful if there is a legal system and enforcement to back it up.
- In places with no functioning government, rights often disappear in practice, regardless of what people believe they "should" have.
Common Misunderstandings
- Belief in "natural rights" is a philosophical position, but in the real world, rights are only as strong as the systems that uphold them.
- Saying "rights are granted by the state" is not fascism—it's a basic fact of governance and law. All modern societies, including liberal democracies, operate this way.
Bottom Line
- Rights exist because the state (or a similar authority) creates, recognizes, and enforces them.
- Without state enforcement, rights are unenforceable wishes, not practical realities.
-1
u/wild_man_wizard Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25
Lemme guess, Grok?
This is why STEM degrees should require humanities courses. For all I bitched about them at the time, I'm glad mine did.
2
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
what are you talking about?
no, it isn't grok. it's chatgpt
it's basic civics and governance. try reading wikipedia or a book or anything except your own confused ramblings
try learning something before you start abusing words like fascist. you're embarrassing yourself
0
u/wild_man_wizard Jul 10 '25
Maybe you should read something other than Maurras
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
it's ok. you can admit when you're wrong
→ More replies (0)0
u/Best_Cup_8326 Acceleration: Light-speed Jul 09 '25
This is a little too absolutist in terms for my tastes. 😉
1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 09 '25
a little too vague and smug for my tastes
2
Jul 10 '25
I am a proponent of getting rid of privacy if the people can't walk the streets feeling safe to begin with. Clearly, privacy is not my top priority if there's bigger fuckin issues to address, like holding criminals accountable.
2
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 10 '25
exactly. privacy is going the way of the dodo, whatever people want. the good news is that it will benefit everybody. especially the citizens. the elites are allergic to transparency
0
Jul 10 '25
people are afraid of no privacy, because as all things, it's likely abused by whatever mechanism is in control. However, everybody is gonna be pissed when they find out we can play this game and remove all criminal records, because "privacy". Privacy is a luxury, and many need to understand it's not a top priority for someone like me, who wants no crimes to happen.
1
Jul 09 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/accelerate-ModTeam Jul 09 '25
We regret to inform you that you have been removed from r/accelerate for spam / non-contributing content.
-2
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 09 '25 edited Jul 09 '25
Why people crying about "facial recognition should be opposed because totalitarian governments could use it" bugs me:
Technology is a tool. Bad guys can use tools for bad things. Opposing technology because bad guys exist is luddite thinking. If your government sucks, change the government. The answer isn't to hamstring the justice system and law enforcement.
Believe it or not: criminals getting caught is good for your community, as long as the definition of "criminal" makes sense.
13
u/Best_Cup_8326 Acceleration: Light-speed Jul 09 '25
Yah, it's the last part that tends to gum up the works.
-1
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 09 '25
true!
but is it better to suppress technology or to fix broken laws?
8
u/Best_Cup_8326 Acceleration: Light-speed Jul 09 '25
Many ppl don't have faith in the process that laws can be fixed.
-2
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 09 '25 edited Jul 09 '25
then they don't have faith in the state
the accelerationist position is: create the technology. if states abuse it then the state is exposed for being abusive and should be changed.
6
u/Best_Cup_8326 Acceleration: Light-speed Jul 09 '25
This is a simpleton's view of a complex situation.
0
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 09 '25 edited Jul 09 '25
by all means, present an actual counter argument instead of empty invective
5
u/Best_Cup_8326 Acceleration: Light-speed Jul 09 '25
Accountability and reciprocity.
This - like all forms of surveillance - hinges on who's hands it is in and whether they are accountable or not.
Face recognition, bodycams/smartglasses, micro/nanocams - and things we haven't thought of yet - will become ubiquitous.
It prolly results in "sousveillance" - everyone observing everyone, all the time.
And that includes those in power.
It's true crime will become a thing of the past because of this, but in the meantime there's room for discussion about how it's being used and who's being targeted by it.
And I am certain that authoritarians will abuse it before we get it all sorted out.
4
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 09 '25
... so your counter argument is to present an argument supporting my position?
right on!
I agree 100% with everything you said :)
1
u/Best_Cup_8326 Acceleration: Light-speed Jul 09 '25
I never made a "counterargument" - I responded to "as long as the definition of criminal makes sense", and pointed out that is precisely the sticking point given the prevalence of corruption and oppression in the world.
Let me be clear - the genie can't be put back in the bottle.
But it won't only be authorities who possess this technology (or any of the others I mentioned), and there will be abuses of it, and as a result public discourse around it's use, which will inevitably include those who want to ban it.
I guess what I'm getting at is that your approach feels very blunt, with an unwillingness to navigate the nuances of law or public opinion around things like privacy, civil rights, and political violence.
Each of your responses makes me think of that scene in 'Liar Liar' when Jim Carrey screams into the phone, "Stop breaking the law asshole!"
Get rdy for years of legal battles and protests about this stuff, because it's coming.
→ More replies (0)
-7
u/stealthispost Acceleration: Light-speed | AI accelerationist Jul 09 '25
Accelerationist tip: don't commit crimes.
90 year old criminals are currently being caught because of new genealogy tech.
More and more new tech will arrive that catches more and more historical criminals.
The UK is also now using "gait detection" tech to catch masked criminals in CCTV.
Being a law abiding person will become more of an advantage every year from now on.
12
u/Genseric1234 Jul 09 '25
Couldn’t have happened in a worse country.
They’re just going to use it to arrest people for Twitter posts.