That pertains to collecting biometric info, not end users of facial recognition services. From your link:
> The BIPA requires companies doing business in Illinois to comply with a number of requirements pertaining to the collection and storage of biometric information. These include a requirement that companies:
> Obtain consent from individuals if the company intends to collect or disclose their personal biometric identifiers.
> Destroy biometric identifiers in a timely manner.
> Securely store biometric identifiers.[6]
> A key area of focus is that an entity must use a "reasonable standard of care"[7] in managing biometric information and identifiers.
If you actually read the full text of the law, it states:
" "Biometric identifier” means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry. Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs, human biological
samples, [...] "
So if it's just pictures of faces, then it's okay. If, however, at any point in the pipeline the actual facial geometry is calculated or stored, that might be a violation.
When people violate the law, we incarcerate them, i.e. restrict their movement. Corporate stock should be incarcerated (i.e. movement restricted i.e. can not be sold/traded) when corporations break the law.
Since people cannot work from prison, corporations should be equivalent: they may not conduct any business. But since people in prison are still responsible for things like rent, corporations should keep paying rent and salary too. Not sure if it's possible to get a friend corporation to do that for you though…
How many biometrics per minute can every glass in Chicago collect, each one costing 5k?
It's not per biometric, it's per violation. Collecting the same face 20x is 20 infractions.
Good question. User data is the right of the user. We don’t have automations for everything yet (we’re super early!) but any user has total right to request deletion, updates, or deliverance of their data, which we seek to comply with fully. You can find more information on our privacy and compliance progress here: https://heyhyper.ai/faq
I do not know which model specifically, but I saw the founder answering a question about how it's a small model that's focused on just this one specific requirement.
> BIPA establishes standards for how companies must handle Illinois consumers’ biometric information. In addition to its notice and consent requirement, the law prohibits any company from selling or otherwise profiting from consumers’ biometric information.
Pretty sure that does not cover a face database indexing your own photos/videos, running locally on your own computer. If it did, that would be extremely silly.
It could be, but the market could bounce right back. And if it does, it's hard to know who will emerge stronger. Anthropic could end up like Amazon, or it could end up like Yahoo.
I love this, and am bookmarking it. I have had to review a lot of AI-generated prose lately, and it's often overly long and tiring to read. It's completely avoidable, as LLMs are great at summarization. The issue is that people don't know how to prompt AI to edit.
This article is representative of what's wrong in internet culture. It's fine to take a moral stance, but it's not reasonable to expect others to agree with and align with your personal morals.
I've been vegetarian for over 30 years, on moral (environmental) grounds. It does put me in the minority. But I don't expect others to change their behavior.
If you want to avoid AI, avoid AI. If you feel strongly enough that you want to avoid entire companies or corners of the internet, great. These are just the side effects of having a strong opinion.
Bit confused - you and me voluntarily reading a blog post linked on HN, doesn't make the author someone who is pushing their morals on us?
I read the article, and at worst it could be called whinging, but at its lowest point it never came across as trying to push a view point on the reader. What am I missing?
It’s less about the article pushing a POV (although it does), and more about the attitude of the author, which is basically “I’m angry that taking an absolutist stance will cause discomfort!”
Having a libertarian stance on morality is great unless its actually important to take a stand. It's the difference between "I would never own slaves" and being an abolitionist. I think it's pretty reasonable to expect others to agree and align with my personal morals around slavery.
To me, slavery is an ethical issue and transcends morals, but setting that aside:
You have to follow your own moral compass and do what's workable. If you're compelled to take a stand, take a stand. Just know that you can't force other people to change their morals. People who follow this line of thought to its extreme end up killing people who disagree with them. This is how you get everything from anarchist bombings to civil wars.
Personally I think car culture is more damaging than data centers and the threat of super intelligence, but I'm not willing to kill anyone over any of it.
I'm not sure why you're setting slavery aside. It's my whole point. Do you think the Union should have conceded the civil war because "you can't force other people to change their morals?"
reply