Raw LLM Responses

There's a lot of statements here from AOC, but I don't think facial recognition is the crux of the problem. She mentions, > "That evidence is often not disclosed which also compounds on our broken criminal justice system where people very often don't get entitled to the evidence against them." > "So what we're seeing here is that these technologies are almost automating injustices both in the criminal justice system but also automating biases that compound on the lack of diversity in Silicon Valley" I think these two statements are the meat of this discussion. The first one is where I see the actual issues being centered - our justice system is set up in a way where it's advantageous to make a conviction, whether that's through asset forfeitures or prison quotas. This isn't the fault of facial recognition however, it's the fault of our system for exploiting the capabilities of it. Likewise when she talks about the biases in Silicon Valley, I think the actual root of the problem isn't facial recognition, but the incentives around why companies want to use it. Ms. Whittaker response to AOC on this was very pertinent I think: > "These companies do not reflect the general population, and the choices and business decisions they make are in the interest of a small few" Those small few are often times the true customers of many sites and apps today - the advertisers. Youtube's customer is the advertiser, not you. Same with snapchat. Their users are the ad networks. On Instagram, you aren't the user, you're the product. If we want to stop being treated like products, we need to change the model of how we consume our information. What we need are subscription based services where the companies that actually run them aren't trying to sell every single piece of our information in order to stay afloat. Facial reco is just another tool. It can be used for good, or it can be used for evil. Whether it is or isn't wont come down to legislation, it will come do