> Not sure about this take. You need data at the end of the day, to build good AI models.

I don't think she is saying that AI is predicated on surveillance as a source of training data (although that does happen in a few cases). She seems to be saying that surveillance is the primary use case for AI.

Actually I don't think that's true, consider manufacturing robots. However, mass surveillance, a societal scourge and urgent threat to democracy, does seem to be greatly enhanced by AI, so I think this is a bit of worry take.

> These days it feels like anyone's public takes are more or less just a means to promote their own cause.

Wasn't it always true? Trivially all people advocate their beliefs, with a few marginal exceptions like the guy who reads the weather report.