I think there’s an important semantic difference between worse performance and correctness. Tools, like AI, can underperform when compared to humans and still be very useful and worth investing into, but that’s only as long as they perform correctly.
The neat part is that we can’t even claim that they’re little mistakes or that there’s few of them.
That’s such a bad argument too. The whole point of technology is to help perfect the output of humans. Why would we buy technology that is known to not do that
It already exists, lots of institutions people work with know way more than just their age. They could really provide an anonymous way of validating someone’s age without divulging their identity. This can also be done in such a way that the verification provider doesn’t know the requester either so they don’t have a way of tracking user habits
This isn’t surprising, 20% of the world’s supply of literally anything would have profound impacts with how tightly coupled the world supply chain is. When that resource is a basic need such as petrol, things tend to become dramatic quite quicly
Not for me. Looks like CNN it’s not free everywhere. Interesting.
OP is responding to your original question. If you’re asking if it safe to do it, then you are worried about the consequences of doing it and wonder if you should stop. That would mean that you are “obeying a rule before it exists”.
As to your current comment, you should understand that current “AI” solutions do not think anything. If the current solutions were used for mass surveillance, then they would be used to classify your actions in some predefined way and whomever is using them will use this classification in some (possibly nefarious) unknown way