The story itself is pretty ridiculous. He starts with a conclusion, and then looks for stories to support that narrative. What should happen, is first establish criteria to measure if an AI project has been successful or not and then measure projects against that criteria. Instead the author uses anecdotal stories of projects he has heard failed, so it must all be wrong.
Not one mention of the advances in medical research using AI, because it goes against his narrative.
I completely agree there are abuses. But outlawing the technology doesn't change the mindset of law enforcement. In my opinion, we put pressure on lawmakers to make it criminal to abuse this power. We still protect the vulnerable, and our privacy is protected.
Considering its AI reviewing the texts and not humans, general privacy isn't compromised. Again, let's deal with the real issue which is abuse of power.
You are describing a policy failing, not technology. I think we can both agree the policy side of things is sorely lacking. Circumstances where people are detained because of AI reporting without ever looking at the evidence themselves just shouldn't happen.
Try the hyperbole 'Is there a bomb in my suitcase? What do you think, I would put it in a checked bag?" I'm sure the hilarity will be overwhelming.
I believe I can have an opinion on absolutely anything, just as you can. I don't disparage or insult people, but I do share my opinion. What's the point of any of this?
I'm fine with monitoring Snapchat and actioning death threats. Not sure if you caught this part, but its AI that monitors looking for death threats, not humans.
The story says active users.