I think AI can be good in school for learning, but security risk monitering have a whole lot of risks and with limited data tends to lead to inconsistent flagging instead of making schools safer.
So if we "safely" and "equitably" turn schools into surveillance nightmares with zero privacy during children's tender years, there would be no concerns?
With all due respect, your comment is analogous to responding to "I like pancakes" with "So you hate waffles?".
Sometimes when people say "bad thing is worse for some people than others" they assume that the readers will be in a rational enough mindset to realize the implied "bad thing is bad for everyone".
But they're not saying "bad thing is worse for some people than others", they're saying "thing is bad because it treats people differently and sometimes malfunctions". What will happen when those faults are corrected, but the public has not been educated about any other drawbacks, and doesn't know any other objections?
Will they suddenly learn eloquence and introspection, and be able to translate their instinctive misgivings into strong, logical arguments about the dangers of surveillance?
If you believe that, then you have far more faith in the common public than I. Misplaced faith, given how poorly they've resisted surveillance so far, even in their personal habits.
I think AI can be good in school for learning, but security risk monitering have a whole lot of risks and with limited data tends to lead to inconsistent flagging instead of making schools safer.
So if we "safely" and "equitably" turn schools into surveillance nightmares with zero privacy during children's tender years, there would be no concerns?
With all due respect, your comment is analogous to responding to "I like pancakes" with "So you hate waffles?".
Sometimes when people say "bad thing is worse for some people than others" they assume that the readers will be in a rational enough mindset to realize the implied "bad thing is bad for everyone".
But they're not saying "bad thing is worse for some people than others", they're saying "thing is bad because it treats people differently and sometimes malfunctions". What will happen when those faults are corrected, but the public has not been educated about any other drawbacks, and doesn't know any other objections?
Will they suddenly learn eloquence and introspection, and be able to translate their instinctive misgivings into strong, logical arguments about the dangers of surveillance?
If you believe that, then you have far more faith in the common public than I. Misplaced faith, given how poorly they've resisted surveillance so far, even in their personal habits.