> This is a political problem, not a technological one.
Somewhat of a distinction without a difference, IMO. Politics (consensus mechanisms, governance structures, etc) are all themselves technologies for coordinating and shaping social activity. The decision on how to implement new (surveillance) tooling is also a technological question, as I think that the use of the tool in part defines what it is. All this to say that changes in the capabilities of specific tools are not the absolute limits of "technology", decisions around implementation and usage are also within that scope.
> The reason such things did not come to places like the US in the same way is not because we were incapable of such, but because there was no political interest in it.
While perhaps not as all-encompassing as what ended up being built in the USSR, the US absolutely implemented a massive surveillance network pointed at its citizenry [0].
>...managed effective at scale spying with primitive technology
I do think that this is a particularly good point though. This is a not new trend, development in tooling for communications and signal/information processing has led to many developments in state surveillance throughout history. IMO AI should be properly seen as an elaboration or minor paradigm shift in a very long history, rather than wholly new terrain.
> Make it a crime for a business to have the wrong opinion when it comes to who they want to serve or hire?
Assuming you're talking about the Civil Rights Act: the specific crime is not "having the wrong opinion", it's inhibiting inter-state movement and commerce. Bigotry doesn't serve our model of a country where citizens are free to move about within its borders uninhibited and able to support oneself.
Somewhat of a distinction without a difference, IMO. Politics (consensus mechanisms, governance structures, etc) are all themselves technologies for coordinating and shaping social activity. The decision on how to implement new (surveillance) tooling is also a technological question, as I think that the use of the tool in part defines what it is. All this to say that changes in the capabilities of specific tools are not the absolute limits of "technology", decisions around implementation and usage are also within that scope.
> The reason such things did not come to places like the US in the same way is not because we were incapable of such, but because there was no political interest in it.
While perhaps not as all-encompassing as what ended up being built in the USSR, the US absolutely implemented a massive surveillance network pointed at its citizenry [0].
>...managed effective at scale spying with primitive technology
I do think that this is a particularly good point though. This is a not new trend, development in tooling for communications and signal/information processing has led to many developments in state surveillance throughout history. IMO AI should be properly seen as an elaboration or minor paradigm shift in a very long history, rather than wholly new terrain.
> Make it a crime for a business to have the wrong opinion when it comes to who they want to serve or hire?
Assuming you're talking about the Civil Rights Act: the specific crime is not "having the wrong opinion", it's inhibiting inter-state movement and commerce. Bigotry doesn't serve our model of a country where citizens are free to move about within its borders uninhibited and able to support oneself.
[0] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/hist...