so clearly capital and the state think that "AI" is magic w/ AI crime prediction, age verification, peer review, etc. etc. knowing that it's not an unqualified "belief" (ie. capital thinks AI is magic when it is good for capital), how can that perception and the legal gray area it exists in be exploited?

@jonny so, a while ago I was working with a bank and someone there mentioned that if you want to get your card blocked, get a full tank of petrol*, a new pair of trainers†, and a Macdonald's meal‡ in one morning.

That is (or was) apparently what people do with stolen cards, and the algorithm would flag it up as probable fraud based on the training.

I wonder if there are similar sets of transactions for win conditions. It can't be illegal to legitimately exchange money for goods and services even if it does inadvertently mislead an AI.

* gas
† sneakers
‡ Macdonald's meal

interesting... wonder what you mean by win conditions?

@jonny well, if you can generate a false positive for negative attention, maybe you can generate a false positive for special treatment without getting too out of pocket. Although that's a tricky grey area to play in.

@jonny hi, just a check here on the meaning of "capital" -> capital city? centre? politically where government is?
(perhaps all these things?)

And are you asking
- how AI can be good for capital's self?
- how can that perception (capital's perception I think you mean?) and the legal gray area it exists in be exploited? (like against them or against people?)

capital as in capitalism. how can the perception of AI being "magic" (eg. "age detection algorithms veridically measure age") be used for good (ie. liberation from capital) given the state of beliefs and the legal indeterminacy of the status of AI applications

I think it can't be used for good when it's used by pure-profit people.

If profit only is the main factor and those only seeking to do more 'efficient' job in that (i.e get more tax or more production)... then it's no use.
It might help give an example also as to which perspective or who you might mean if I don't have it quite right.
If it's from perspective of "we the people" or any ideal humans things, then none of increments are ever good, they just add/speed things up/multiply more tools on their side in an already bad chess game where their other pieces and tools also make things inflexible to any non-profit change.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.