>The use of AI in the military is exempt, as are systems used by authorities in order to safeguard public security.
Of course.
Of course.
Assuming we are talking about a democratic state, at least there are some checks and balances on governments whereas people cannot elect a FAANG CEO or go to a ‘.gov’ website to read a transcript of board meetings.
Edit: I am by no means advocating for government’s use of AI in any form.
[1] https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...
Private prison kickbacks for conviction are a thing.
Solving corruption is orthogonal to the question of whether private corporations can perform extra-judicial imprisonment with impunity. That really just doesn't happen at scale, because it can't.
I really hope that's true, but it might also be that it was only convicted for once in history while it happens more often.
I think both are equally menacing. The problem with business usage is that we're "trusting" them to be good stewards of that capability.
There's not much preventing a business from abusing such power in a covert anti-competitive anti-consumer fashion, or worse, selling access to that power to the highest bidder (as a service!).
Perhaps not, but companies can deny you access to fundamental electronic infrastructure, use of which is increasingly essential in a cashless society where services are online or non-existent. With no right of appeal.
Well, PG&E cut down a whole bunch of trees in my town just recently, against the objections of the locals and the city council. And Judge Alsop, who supervises their bankruptcy chided them for this slap-dash, crude effort to show they were doing thing (didn't stop them, darn it).
So you see a bunch of actions that look like the state or industry acting by fiat. But it only looks that way. The many institutions of this society are at loggerheads with each other, the parties are in gridlock, etc. The main thing is they've shut out the average person from their debates - which is a bit different.
The propensity of leaders to rule by executive order, or cabinet bill is what I'm getting at. Those sorts of actions are most certainly ruling by fiat.
I saw that too, and ended up wondering if it'll be ignored if it's seen that crime prediction falls under the "public safety" exception, from time to time (or eventually, altogether). That's the problem with vague things like "public safety" being tied to regulation, imo.