I'm confused. Isn't the fact that the AI determined this based on human user input simply a reflection of the sad state of our society, and not the AI itself? Surely no one programmed the AI to automatically regard minority attributes as negative. Unless I'm misinterpreting this, Google shouldn't be apologizing. The human race should. The great thing about an AI is that you can easily determine what it really "thinks," unlike human beings which conveniently hide it behind a friendly façade (well, at least they used to before Trumpism took over).
This would be cool if it weren't proprietary, closed-source, and only available on Windows and Mac proprietary operating systems. Since it's coming from Iran, the developer probably had to pirate all this proprietary software in the first place. Sad.
The biggest question for me when deciding on any hardware purchase is how well the manufacturer supports the development of Free, open-source drivers for their hardware, either through the availability of specifications or actually contributing to driver development. Intel has become phenomenal at this, to the point where Intel graphics are the only thing I'll consider using at this point. I used to be a big fan of AMD, but it feels like they have not kept up, particularly since they purchased ATI. I would love to see that trend reversed. I'm also extremely concerned about the presence of binary black-box code running on the CPUs in the form of management engines and such. What are the specifics on these CPUs? Can all that garbage be easily disabled? Intel (and Qualcomm) really need some good competition, so I really hope AMD can be a contender, but I don't have my hopes up.
I don't give a shit about Brad Keywell. I want to learn about this robot. They don't say a thing about it. Not who developed it, what it does. What kind of salary it is going to be paid, how taxes are going to be collected on it, it's work hours, overtime, maintenance insurance, or any of the other things that go along with being a fully-fledged citizen.
Actively trying to make batteries non-replaceable is unacceptable. I'm not certain this is what is going on, however. If it is legitimately being done in order to improve the form-factor of the device, and as long as the battery is still replaceable by a technician with the proper tools, I don't have a problem with it. Making things end-user-accessible isn't always smart. Where do you draw the line? Screens crack all the time. Do we require phones to be made in such a way that an end-user can easily pop out a broken screen and replace it with a new one? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean it can't be repaired by a properly trained professional.
Another, related thing that we desperately need is to outlaw any attempts to "lock" or otherwise restrict what an end-user can do with their own device they have purchased. Such locks are only acceptable on devices being leased or that the end-user does not own outright. This goes beyond just mobile phone modifications, but all IoT devices—anything with on-board firmware, basically.
After that, the next step is to require manufacturers to release source code to all of their binary firmware packages. Sadly this goal is much farther off, but we still shouldn't loose sight of it.
Uh, what? The article is suggesting that the platform with 80% of the smartphone market is only responsible for 20% of the email opened? That makes no sense at all. Maybe it's just that Android has better controls to combat this kind of tracking, unlike Apple devices which give the end-user no control whatsoever.
Doesn't 55% seem too low? I probably open 95% of my emails on my phone first, because of the instant notification. Usually just a quick glance before I open up my desktop email client. How are they even tracking this? Does it take into consideration repeat views like in my case? Also, what about the email subject & snippet that is shown in a notification?
It's gotten to the point where email is basically worthless anyway. You can't load images, because they are trying to track you. You can't ever click on a link safely, because you are trying to track you. It's become little more than a (poor) notification system directing you to go (manually) log into a website or something. Very frustrating and disappointing to see what has become of the medium.
I'm curious, what do the suppliers have to do with the accuracy of the system? Is it not entirely software-based? Or is Apple actually licensing someone else's software to do it, and that is the "supplier" they are referring to? Some kind of embedded firmware?
Just look at all of the criminals constantly speeding on the road, not to mention using phones while driving. These minor infractions need to come with a penalty that really impacts people's lives... One night in jail would be perfect. It needs to keep them from getting to work, picking up their kids, their friend's party... *something* that is really going to have a lasting impact besides just money. Monetary penalties are also extremely regressive and hurt poor people the most. That's not okay.
I'm glad they're doing *something*, but this is not an ideal solution.
On the desktop, use a separate Firefox Container Tab just for Gmail. On your mobile, as suggested use IMAP or even a dedicated web browser just for GMail. It's really not that complicated. Of course you can also use a privacy blocker like uBlock, Noscript, etc. to avoid being tracked across the web.
I don't understand Google's strategy at all. It pushed us all to move to Google Inbox, and then basically just left it alone, without really expanding its feature set. Now it's adding new features to the old Gmail. What is going on? It's hard to comprehend their strategy, though I shouldn't be surprised with their track record. Google really just needs to combine the two products, perhaps adding an "Inbox" mode to Gmail. Perhaps this is laying the groundwork for that, and Inbox could be coming as a future add-on?
It actually sounds like you need to expand your definition of what constitutes artificial intelligence. (Hint: it's not just sentience!) While the media could always do a better job of reporting so that the general public understands this distinction, that doesn't invalidate all the existing AI out there because it doesn't meet your very narrow definition.
Great use of bold, though, AC. Definitely makes you sound more important. Next time try all caps, too!
Were these headlines generated based on user news submissions? Otherwise the exercise is completely useless. The job of the AI is to turn a user submission into a headline. Not to invent a headline out of thin air. The AI should read the user submission, read all linked articles, and distil a headline from all of that information based on the patterns established over the past 20 years. It sounds like this was just a stupid mad libs generator.
Do they really think people are ignorant enough to fall for this? Okay, actually the U.S. government undoubtedly is, but not the rest of us. Unless these security researchers with access to the source code are going to be the ones compiling it and releasing binaries, this is nothing but a pointless exercise. If they released verifiable builds, where independent security researchers could release a unique signature of the binaries generated from code they had compiled themselves, then *maybe* this would be interesting. Otherwise, it's just business as usual in the world of proprietary software.
Maybe these idiot Chinese people will enter the 21st century and stop worrying about superstitious nonsense like "disrespecting their ancestor's spirit." I only wish there was a way we could convince all the idiot Christians in the west of this, and outlaw cemeteries once and for all. This is one area where China should exert it's authority over stupid people and require that the bodies be converted into fertilizer to serve the greater good of society in the most environmentally friendly way possible. Cremation releases lots of CO2 and other toxic gasses into the air and is unacceptable.
Carriers don't have access to text message *contents*, only metadata, and besides, any criminal (or anyone who cares about their privacy, really) is going to use a 3rd-party service to communicate, not standard text messages. Logs of these exchanges, lists of contacts, browsing history, links to other websites, and yes, even photos are all potentially valuable evidence in an investigation. I'm sure there's a lot more out there as well. I highly doubt you are enough of an expert in law enforcement investigations for it to matter whether you "understand the need" or not (I'm certainly not).
While I completely understand the benefit in accessing this information, they just need to accept that it's no longer going to be accessible to them and move on to other means of investigation.
I just don't understand. They continue to say things like this, appearing to be in complete denial of reality. Why is this? Encryption is out there. It's not going away, and there is no going back to the way they used to operate. They need to accept this. I believe 100% that companies who have the ability to provide/decrypt customer data with a court order should be required to do so. This should increase safety for all of us, as software continues to be written that ensures it is in fact impossible for those companies to access our data, as it should be. In many cases, this means criminals are going to get away with crimes. It's unfortunate, but this is the price we pa for privacy. The tools are available to everyone. There is simply no excuse for this level of ignorance in the law enforcement community, let alone among politicians.
How the hell is Microsoft continuing to make money? I don't get it. They are hurting in every area as people bail on their garbage, proprietary software left and right. From the complete failure of Windows Mobile, to people's complete hatred of Windows 10, to people abandoning Windows entirely for Mac and Chrome OS/Linux. How is this even possible? Is it still just the same, old monopoly problem with them bullying manufacturers into pre-installing their operating system on all of their machines? Or is it the mega-corporations with incompetent IT staff that continue to insist on using their software on thousands of PCs? This is just incredibly sad news...
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because it's not like we have enough people on this planet or anything...
I'm confused. Isn't the fact that the AI determined this based on human user input simply a reflection of the sad state of our society, and not the AI itself? Surely no one programmed the AI to automatically regard minority attributes as negative. Unless I'm misinterpreting this, Google shouldn't be apologizing. The human race should. The great thing about an AI is that you can easily determine what it really "thinks," unlike human beings which conveniently hide it behind a friendly façade (well, at least they used to before Trumpism took over).
This would be cool if it weren't proprietary, closed-source, and only available on Windows and Mac proprietary operating systems. Since it's coming from Iran, the developer probably had to pirate all this proprietary software in the first place. Sad.
ACs always think in black and white. Thanks for living up to your reputation!
The biggest question for me when deciding on any hardware purchase is how well the manufacturer supports the development of Free, open-source drivers for their hardware, either through the availability of specifications or actually contributing to driver development. Intel has become phenomenal at this, to the point where Intel graphics are the only thing I'll consider using at this point. I used to be a big fan of AMD, but it feels like they have not kept up, particularly since they purchased ATI. I would love to see that trend reversed. I'm also extremely concerned about the presence of binary black-box code running on the CPUs in the form of management engines and such. What are the specifics on these CPUs? Can all that garbage be easily disabled? Intel (and Qualcomm) really need some good competition, so I really hope AMD can be a contender, but I don't have my hopes up.
Sadly this is to be expected in an age where "corporations are people." It has nothing to do with actual AI, but rather some business advantage.
I don't give a shit about Brad Keywell. I want to learn about this robot. They don't say a thing about it. Not who developed it, what it does. What kind of salary it is going to be paid, how taxes are going to be collected on it, it's work hours, overtime, maintenance insurance, or any of the other things that go along with being a fully-fledged citizen.
Does anyone have a better source for this?
Actively trying to make batteries non-replaceable is unacceptable. I'm not certain this is what is going on, however. If it is legitimately being done in order to improve the form-factor of the device, and as long as the battery is still replaceable by a technician with the proper tools, I don't have a problem with it. Making things end-user-accessible isn't always smart. Where do you draw the line? Screens crack all the time. Do we require phones to be made in such a way that an end-user can easily pop out a broken screen and replace it with a new one? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean it can't be repaired by a properly trained professional.
Another, related thing that we desperately need is to outlaw any attempts to "lock" or otherwise restrict what an end-user can do with their own device they have purchased. Such locks are only acceptable on devices being leased or that the end-user does not own outright. This goes beyond just mobile phone modifications, but all IoT devices—anything with on-board firmware, basically.
After that, the next step is to require manufacturers to release source code to all of their binary firmware packages. Sadly this goal is much farther off, but we still shouldn't loose sight of it.
Uh, what? The article is suggesting that the platform with 80% of the smartphone market is only responsible for 20% of the email opened? That makes no sense at all. Maybe it's just that Android has better controls to combat this kind of tracking, unlike Apple devices which give the end-user no control whatsoever.
Doesn't 55% seem too low? I probably open 95% of my emails on my phone first, because of the instant notification. Usually just a quick glance before I open up my desktop email client. How are they even tracking this? Does it take into consideration repeat views like in my case? Also, what about the email subject & snippet that is shown in a notification?
It's gotten to the point where email is basically worthless anyway. You can't load images, because they are trying to track you. You can't ever click on a link safely, because you are trying to track you. It's become little more than a (poor) notification system directing you to go (manually) log into a website or something. Very frustrating and disappointing to see what has become of the medium.
I'm curious, what do the suppliers have to do with the accuracy of the system? Is it not entirely software-based? Or is Apple actually licensing someone else's software to do it, and that is the "supplier" they are referring to? Some kind of embedded firmware?
Just look at all of the criminals constantly speeding on the road, not to mention using phones while driving. These minor infractions need to come with a penalty that really impacts people's lives... One night in jail would be perfect. It needs to keep them from getting to work, picking up their kids, their friend's party... *something* that is really going to have a lasting impact besides just money. Monetary penalties are also extremely regressive and hurt poor people the most. That's not okay.
I'm glad they're doing *something*, but this is not an ideal solution.
On the desktop, use a separate Firefox Container Tab just for Gmail. On your mobile, as suggested use IMAP or even a dedicated web browser just for GMail. It's really not that complicated. Of course you can also use a privacy blocker like uBlock, Noscript, etc. to avoid being tracked across the web.
I don't understand Google's strategy at all. It pushed us all to move to Google Inbox, and then basically just left it alone, without really expanding its feature set. Now it's adding new features to the old Gmail. What is going on? It's hard to comprehend their strategy, though I shouldn't be surprised with their track record. Google really just needs to combine the two products, perhaps adding an "Inbox" mode to Gmail. Perhaps this is laying the groundwork for that, and Inbox could be coming as a future add-on?
It actually sounds like you need to expand your definition of what constitutes artificial intelligence. (Hint: it's not just sentience!) While the media could always do a better job of reporting so that the general public understands this distinction, that doesn't invalidate all the existing AI out there because it doesn't meet your very narrow definition.
Great use of bold, though, AC. Definitely makes you sound more important. Next time try all caps, too!
Duplicates should be included so as to train the AI to recognize them and prevent them from being posted in the first place. Now that would be useful!
Were these headlines generated based on user news submissions? Otherwise the exercise is completely useless. The job of the AI is to turn a user submission into a headline. Not to invent a headline out of thin air. The AI should read the user submission, read all linked articles, and distil a headline from all of that information based on the patterns established over the past 20 years. It sounds like this was just a stupid mad libs generator.
It should be standard for *all* software, period. That's what the Open Source movement is all about.
People need to start thinking of proprietary software just like they do non-peer-reviewed scientific research. We need to build a web of trust.
Do they really think people are ignorant enough to fall for this? Okay, actually the U.S. government undoubtedly is, but not the rest of us. Unless these security researchers with access to the source code are going to be the ones compiling it and releasing binaries, this is nothing but a pointless exercise. If they released verifiable builds, where independent security researchers could release a unique signature of the binaries generated from code they had compiled themselves, then *maybe* this would be interesting. Otherwise, it's just business as usual in the world of proprietary software.
Maybe these idiot Chinese people will enter the 21st century and stop worrying about superstitious nonsense like "disrespecting their ancestor's spirit." I only wish there was a way we could convince all the idiot Christians in the west of this, and outlaw cemeteries once and for all. This is one area where China should exert it's authority over stupid people and require that the bodies be converted into fertilizer to serve the greater good of society in the most environmentally friendly way possible. Cremation releases lots of CO2 and other toxic gasses into the air and is unacceptable.
Carriers don't have access to text message *contents*, only metadata, and besides, any criminal (or anyone who cares about their privacy, really) is going to use a 3rd-party service to communicate, not standard text messages. Logs of these exchanges, lists of contacts, browsing history, links to other websites, and yes, even photos are all potentially valuable evidence in an investigation. I'm sure there's a lot more out there as well. I highly doubt you are enough of an expert in law enforcement investigations for it to matter whether you "understand the need" or not (I'm certainly not).
While I completely understand the benefit in accessing this information, they just need to accept that it's no longer going to be accessible to them and move on to other means of investigation.
I just don't understand. They continue to say things like this, appearing to be in complete denial of reality. Why is this? Encryption is out there. It's not going away, and there is no going back to the way they used to operate. They need to accept this. I believe 100% that companies who have the ability to provide/decrypt customer data with a court order should be required to do so. This should increase safety for all of us, as software continues to be written that ensures it is in fact impossible for those companies to access our data, as it should be. In many cases, this means criminals are going to get away with crimes. It's unfortunate, but this is the price we pa for privacy. The tools are available to everyone. There is simply no excuse for this level of ignorance in the law enforcement community, let alone among politicians.
How the hell is Microsoft continuing to make money? I don't get it. They are hurting in every area as people bail on their garbage, proprietary software left and right. From the complete failure of Windows Mobile, to people's complete hatred of Windows 10, to people abandoning Windows entirely for Mac and Chrome OS/Linux. How is this even possible? Is it still just the same, old monopoly problem with them bullying manufacturers into pre-installing their operating system on all of their machines? Or is it the mega-corporations with incompetent IT staff that continue to insist on using their software on thousands of PCs? This is just incredibly sad news...
Were their metals not properly massaged and marbled as advertised? This sounds familiar...