Hyperbole really serves no purpose when it's so extreme. Instead of talking about the merits of "how can this technology be abused?" you're putting everyone else on the defensive, having to say "I'm not abusing it".
Like,
> AI is a way, I think, to entrench and expand the surveillance business model,” she said. “The Venn diagram is a circle.”
No it isn't.
If you want to say "facial recognition is a surveillance technology" OK. I find it deeply ironic that you then point out a use case where facial recognition is not used for surveillance and is actually protecting people (by blurring out faces) when you've just said that "The Venn diagram is a circle" but ok, at least the hyperbole is not so absurd if we limit it there. But then you just look like you're saying "AI" for headlines because yeah, we've been talking about facial recognition being surveillance technology for like 30 years or more...
This article should have been reframed as something more like "The surveillance impacts of advanced AI techniques on Facial Recognition", to throw out a half assed attempt at a title/ rephrasing. The hyperbole should have been applied exclusively to surveillance applications, which is hardly polarizing by contrast, and the interesting bit would have been to hear about how AI factors in. Instead this was a puff piece with no real technical content, nothing interesting, and is practically a time piece from the early 2000s surveillance discussion with "AI" slapped onto the headline for clicks.