Don't region lock yourself - abuse investigations in Europe or Australia may be from abuse in a different jurisdiction. Alternatively, a gift given from an Australian family member to a European could be a bit of information that helps an investigation rule out or close in on a potential abuser.
I’ve spent just a teeny bit of time helping international ICE investigators (not that one; internet child exploitation) postpone PTSD with technology. It seems like after two years of their job, they’re going to have a mental break. So postponing is all you can really do.
It’s disheartening how underfunded these agencies are compared to, what feels like at least, the severity of the crimes they’re up against.
These folks are heroes. This is one place AI has a lot of potential (but very little commercial value).
Moderation feels like the one of the most ethical uses of AI. Being able to prevent a lot of the worst content from being posted and preventing people from being exposed to it.
> Putting that kind of filter in the way of speech seems ripe for abuse.
On one hand I agree with you. Any automatic filter implemented can later be expanded to cover more and more things, such as messages from political adversaries for example. It's a slippery slope as we all know.
On the other hand I don't think it applies in this context very much. If we're talking about content published by a corporation or such (say a newspaper for example) they already filter all their gathered news themselves and have no obligation to publish things they don't feel like.
Similarly if we're talking about user uploaded content on social media I don't think they have any obligation to publish everything and anything that their users decide to upload either, and it's not the expectations of the users that anything can be hosted there for them. Users already know that youtube/facebook/tiktok/what-have-you have seemingly arbitrary rules regarding what content they're willing to host and not.
Now if for example DNS providers or ISPs decide to implement these sort of filters on the web at large that's a different matter I think. In which case I agree with you.
I don't think the issue here is related to AI. Without AI, moderators would still have to look at these same videos. The difference is they would hit the public first before being flagged and sent to moderators. Now with AI they can be prevented from ever going public.
The fact that we still need to traumatize workers to confirm the automated decisions is sad. The only other ways I can see to resolve this would be either to just blindly trust the AI result without any human oversight, or to require all facebook users to link their government ID to accounts and only allow posting by users in countries where the authorities arrest the people posting these things.
The agencies already have massive collections of csam from every arrest and site seizure. They already have systems that can identify existing csam by fingerprint or computer vision, so very little needs to be seen by humans, only newly produced material.
Outsourcing everything. Even PTSD from training AI to India so privileged law enforcement officers and social media moderators don't have to. This system is so hypocritical and broken.
Another comment mentioned ICE as well, so I've been looking into it, and imagine my surprise to learn that ICE (yes that one) has been working in this space since since the Obama admin. Huh.
HSI was primarily the main investigative body responsible for human traffic and crimes against children prior to this administration. The second largest federal investigative agency behind the FBI (6k agents). Now doing immigration enforcement.
It's unfortunate that they are being repurposed to fix a problem entirely generated purposefully for political gain. Those individuals should never have been allowed to flood the system and take effort away from true egregious victims and crime.
Yeah, I looked into it, and ICE actually has two distinct components: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). Pretty much everyone things ICE == ERO, so you've got stuff like Canadians agitating to close the HSI collaboration offices in Canada.
Well and unfortunately until recent times ERO was mostly dedicated to criminals first and other folks second but my understand was there was a backlog of criminals to find, capture and remove that person he other parts were less of a concern.
Coyotes are frequently part of criminal organizations. They take advantage of people in any and every way that they can. Slavery, sexual and otherwise, is not at all an uncommon result of being brought into the country under the radar, so to speak.
This administration pulled people off catching child predators to go after some Juan at home depot. in light of the epstein coverup, its hardly surprising.
AI for helping mitigate PTSD, or helping with the investigations?
Because the latter basically entails helping create a surveillance state. Which in theory could be an acceptable trade-off, but it seems disingenuous to say "AI companies have no financial incentives here" when the big issue is that AI companies would actually be helping to establish powerful dragnet surveillance capabilities. There would need to be a strong democratic process around this.
You’re repeating the parent commenters position but missing their point: we have isolated environments already, we need better paradigms to understand (and hook) agent actions. You’re saying the latter half is sandboxing and I disagree.
Will the company go out of their way to do right by customers who were led to disadvantageous positions due to the chat bot?
Almost certainly not. So the disclaimer basically ends up becoming a one way get out of jail for free card, which is not what disclaimers are supposed to be.
Were you doing it on your own time? From your described “a lot of effort,” I assume it was not but please correct me if I’m wrong.
If you’re being paid for your time by someone else, it’s fair to notify them how you plan to use a significant chunk of that money before you do it. Unless of course you were employed to _not_ do that.
I am not suggesting explaining a day or two of work. But it sounds like you’re talking weeks.
It would be like if I was expected to deliver A by the end of the quarter and instead I delivered A + B. The value gain from B was more than A. Your manager (and hopefully higher up the org) better know about B, or they will attack it as a threat.
Also, I’m not being paid for my time, I’m being paid to do a job. “Trading your time for money” is one of the most self defeating views on work you can have. It reduces you from a worker with agency to a detached prostitue, and is harmful to both the employer and employee.
> Being able to improve something without planning it.
There are very few professions we’d consider this acceptable. Implicit in this statement is the assumption that your time-value is only known by you (or free).
You certainly wouldn’t let your contractor improve things on your dime, unplanned, and unexplained. You might even fire them if you discovered they spent the day “refactoring” conduit instead of installing the pot lights you asked them for.
> You certainly wouldn’t let your contractor improve things on your dime
Where you have a contractor hired on a full-time basis with the intent to built the best house, or at least the most moated house, on the market so that all the people of the world come to live in your house, not someone else's, of course you would.
Your example worsens your position. I do not want my home builder going over budget and over time without telling me, only finding out after their “continual improvement” that I won’t be moving into my house. Worse, because they believe only they’re able to know what’s best.
In your fictional scenario of unlimited budget and time, sure I grant that an expert should work unguided.
> Worse, because they believe only they’re able to know what’s best.
Well, you certainly wouldn't hire a contractor if you knew better, would you? That would be pointless. The whole reason for hiring a contractor, instead of hiring the same laborers the contractor will go on to hire on you behalf anyway, is because the contractor brings the expertise you lack. If you can't trust them to know better than you, why bother? It just becomes an unnecessary expense and a waste of another person's time.
In practice what you’re suggesting is that you’ll let your home builder run over time and over budget. Intervention on your behalf would be an unnecessary expense and a waste of the builders time. They know better and that would be pointless.
Your position is employers are building the best house with the biggest moat to attract the entire world, with an assumed endless time and budget, and there are no bounds to be set with employees.
> you’re suggesting is that you’ll let your home builder run over time and over budget.
If you thought your home builder was going to run over time and budget, you wouldn't hire him in the first place. Those who can't find the necessary trust don't build homes. There are plenty of used homes out there to buy.
Tailscales founders are Canadian, principled, and are very sensitive to Canadian needs. I very much trust Avery and team to do what’s necessary to keep US hands off the data.
edit: someone pointed out they’ve signed new users on to a US co. 15 months ago. I made the statement without knowing this. they aren’t as capable as I originally claimed.
According to their ToS all customer accounts registered on or after September 3, 2024 are signed on to a US company, so no they're not doing what's necessary to keep US hands off the data.
reply