Do you realize you are just restating your opinion, without defending the incorrect assertion that both can be worked around ?
Also, both cannot work around themselves, they need a human to implement the work around once in the program after which the work around is in place until next software update.
Do you have evidence that Damore made the memo "public" ? The evidence I have points to him having made it available on an internal forum, and he was explicitly being asked to. I don't have evidence whether he was asked to make it available on exactly that forum.
From all evidence I see, the memo was leaked to the "public" by someone else.
If that memo had just been to HR
But why is only HR a stakeholder in that discussion ? Most interaction that most employees have is with non-HR employees - so any discussion about culture has to be necessarily with all employees including non-HR ones. Anyway, is there a guarantee that an HR employee would not have leaked the memo and tried to persecute Damore ?
Second, there is unlikely to be any physical danger to anyone
Software / computer security is increasingly capable of causing physical dangers to people. If you notice, computers are parts of machines which operate physically around humans.
Likelihood : Not sure what methodology you are using to compute likelihood. A huge majority of processors of the dominant architecture (X86) from the dominant company (Intel) have a relatively easy to exploit attack, over last 2 decades, some of which need to be patched but will never be due to apathy, which in turn is partly due to statements like yours. So your unquantified assertion of low likelihood is increasing the likelihood by a small amount.
- The FDIV scenario could cause a wrong result from a processor. This can merely cause a security breach.
- The FDIV scenario could merely cause a wrong result from a processor. This can cause a security breach.
FTFY.
- Security can be layered and worked around. A calculator that produces the wrong answer checked by a calculator with the same fault can not work around itself.
The history, and pre-history of man (and other animals) is full of workarounds. No engineer knows the phrase "cannot be worked around", except maybe as a joke.
You also changed the grammar cunningly between the 2 sentences.
1. "Can be layered and worked around" - true for both security and wrong arithmetic answer.
2. "Can not work around itself" : true for both security and wrong arithmetic answer.
Interesting, and has parallels to the classic observer's paradox.
So if you redirect the output of a "computation" into/dev/null, and not observe the computation in any way, is it really "computation" ?
Meanwhile, in the real world, people keep calling it unobserved computation, and hence air, electrons etc. keep computing whether or not you observe it.
The air in your room is constantly computing, the electrons in all matter on earth are constantly computing.
The point with processors like Intel's is that it is easier to control the computation with standard, widely available methods (software). This bug inhibits this control. Which was their only point to begin with, as compared to "computation" devices like air.
Intel says yours falls under 4th Generation Intel Core processors. The PC World article you point to says 4th Generation Intel Core processors are affected.
For journeys to airports, I see people carry around 10 times the luggage on an average than they carry for other commutes / journeys within the city. To accommodate luggage that takes much more space than interstitial space between human beings, the design of the interior of the local transport needs to be vastly different.
If you design all transport to accommodate luggage, it wastes space. If you don't design the airport transport to accommodate luggage, it might get too crowded to carry luggage while mounting and disembarking from the transit. If you design only the transit serving the airport to accommodate luggage - that is difficult to do as the idea of the transit is to serve multiple purposes in a unified manner.
Do you see any solution for carrying luggage other than over-designing ?
You're confusing me with yourself, it is you who tried to insult me. Though reality, on the other hand, has insulted you more, as you were trying to make statements about subjects you didn't know much about. I'm sorry but I played no part in it.
my answer clearly referenced this question, and answered this question
The question, if that part was a question, was posed to the TFA. Anyway, how did you answer it ? You describe a completely different strategy from the one described in TFA - where there is a seeming impersonation of e.g. a jew, rabbi etc.
only have access to if I were involved in the creation of the bot
Which is why "or I missed something" is prefixed with disappointment about the TFA.
Anyway, you admit your ignorance and I couldn't agree more.
and then designed a bot to identify duplicate accounts held by those who fulfilled those criteria.
This has always intrigued me. How do bots accomplish this ?
Your long answer : not about how bots identify duplicate accounts but how duplicate accounts are created, what is posted in them, what every such data share from sock puppets accounts achieves etc.
The only time you went anywhere close to answering the question was a vague guess about shared emails.
I have specifically pointed out that I have no more information about their methodology than is presented in the article
I will try to never again accuse you of having any information.
I'm not sure how the bots identified them, shared emails possibly.
They take so much care to not cross pollinate, and then go ahead and use shared emails which are trivial to create en masse so that they don't have to share emails. Interesting.
You have missed something. The point is....... unwitting people, who all agreed that supporting the troops was good, and animal abuse was bad.
I didn't ask how it is done, I asked how it is detected, that too by bots. First the article and now you, giving exactly the information that is useless, but just tantalizingly close to the real thing. I think you're trying to "steer people towards certain views", but it is not working for me. Try on sheep.
If the article had any evidence of having evidence of the "sock-puppet accounts" belonging to Nazis, I guess they could have provided. Such long winded justification that you are having to manufacture is weak evidence of the article being bullshit. Along with there being no evidence of it not being bullshit that I have been pointing out. I'm still not concluding it is bullshit, but leaning that way, provisionally.
The designers evaluated known Nazi users based on specific criteria, symbology, stated beliefs etc
Humanly ? Any process used to eliminate bias ?
and then designed a bot to identify duplicate accounts held by those who fulfilled those criteria.
This has always intrigued me. How do bots accomplish this ? They also need to make sure that these "sock-puppet" accounts copy pictures / symbology from the attacked community e.g. Jews - because this is one of the main accusations in TFA about them. TFA should have explained much more, or I missed something.
Because it amuses me to say that Nazis smell.
Well, you can say this for all humans, both ways. I.e. all humans emanate odour, and most detect odour through their noses. What is really amusing is when you can feel the smell in your eyes:)
In OSes and individual applications that might be in focus : clipboard stealing attacks commonly keep getting found, published, occasionally fixed. So you need to track a lot of vulnerabilities if you use copy and paste.
If they look like a Nazi, quack like a Nazi, make heavy use of Nazy symbology and espouse the same values, it's reasonablt to call them Nazis.
If you don't mind going back to the actual topic :
1. So the looks of those Twitter account operators were verified by the "bot" to be similar to those of Nazis ?
2. Their quacks ? Hopefully they had Nazi quacks archived somewhere for future reference ?
3. Symbology : this is interesting, because allegedly they adopted Jewish symbology - the tiny cap, pictures of Rabbis, labels like chief Rabbi of such and such place etc.
Do you have evidence that the bot or its operators had any evidence about actual Naziness of the operators of Sock Puppet Accounts (TM) ?
If it looks like a Nazi, Smells like a Nazi, holds the same views as a Nazi, and salutes like a Nazi, it is acceptable to call it a Nazi, and then punch it in it's stupid, ignorant, bigoted, Nazi, face.
Ok. Do you know how did the Twitter bot find out the smell and salute of the operators of those accounts which it calls are "Nazis" ?
Or did the designers of the Twitter bot go and find their smell and salute ? I don't see any evidence in the article linked in this/. story. Do you have that missing evidence ?
How did the bot figure this out ? From the article, " curated database " appears to signal that impersonators were determined by human beings and put in the database. Is this not true ?
So now we are down to believe that these people determined "Nazis" honestly and correctly. That requires looking into the heart of these alleged "Nazis". Doesn't seem likely. Metrics to determine the probability of the operator of a Twitter account being Nazi are not mentioned in the article.
You seem to want to reduce things to absurd levels for some reason.
You are confusing me with yourself.
You said that it doesn't even matter if AI has to be taught. And this is the real answer twice over. This was the most absurd level in this thread. It contradicts many of your statements in this recent post about both starting at 0 and improving with training.
Since everyone involved here has to be taught, by your "original" statement, it doesn't matter for anyone.
I never made statements reduced to such absurd level.
No one has made this point "originally". If you mean ledow , his original point was mainly that the AI is not really "intelligent" (as if means anything in particular) due to not being able to explain WHY [sic] the decision was made.
He shifted to this new definition of "you can say we have AI" later - which included answering over and above the list of options.
The real real answer is that it doesn't matter as long as we have to teach the AI in the first place.
So which human could identify a rifle on the moment of their birth ?
If real real answer to the question is that no one is "smarter", does smarter really mean anything ?
Slashdot Mirror
s/that both can be worked around / that only one can be worked around /
Do you realize you are just restating your opinion, without defending the incorrect assertion that both can be worked around ?
Also, both cannot work around themselves, they need a human to implement the work around once in the program after which the work around is in place until next software update.
made it public
Do you have evidence that Damore made the memo "public" ? The evidence I have points to him having made it available on an internal forum, and he was explicitly being asked to. I don't have evidence whether he was asked to make it available on exactly that forum.
From all evidence I see, the memo was leaked to the "public" by someone else.
If that memo had just been to HR
But why is only HR a stakeholder in that discussion ? Most interaction that most employees have is with non-HR employees - so any discussion about culture has to be necessarily with all employees including non-HR ones. Anyway, is there a guarantee that an HR employee would not have leaked the memo and tried to persecute Damore ?
Second, there is unlikely to be any physical danger to anyone
Software / computer security is increasingly capable of causing physical dangers to people. If you notice, computers are parts of machines which operate physically around humans.
E.g. : https://www.sentryo.net/cybera...
Likelihood : Not sure what methodology you are using to compute likelihood. A huge majority of processors of the dominant architecture (X86) from the dominant company (Intel) have a relatively easy to exploit attack, over last 2 decades, some of which need to be patched but will never be due to apathy, which in turn is partly due to statements like yours. So your unquantified assertion of low likelihood is increasing the likelihood by a small amount.
- The FDIV scenario could cause a wrong result from a processor. This can merely cause a security breach.
- The FDIV scenario could merely cause a wrong result from a processor. This can cause a security breach.
FTFY.
- Security can be layered and worked around. A calculator that produces the wrong answer checked by a calculator with the same fault can not work around itself.
The history, and pre-history of man (and other animals) is full of workarounds. No engineer knows the phrase "cannot be worked around", except maybe as a joke.
You also changed the grammar cunningly between the 2 sentences.
1. "Can be layered and worked around" - true for both security and wrong arithmetic answer.
2. "Can not work around itself" : true for both security and wrong arithmetic answer.
Sounds like Intel. Dishonest.
Interesting, and has parallels to the classic observer's paradox.
So if you redirect the output of a "computation" into /dev/null, and not observe the computation in any way, is it really "computation" ?
Meanwhile, in the real world, people keep calling it unobserved computation, and hence air, electrons etc. keep computing whether or not you observe it.
The air in your room is constantly computing, the electrons in all matter
on earth are constantly computing.
The point with processors like Intel's is that it is easier to control
the computation with standard, widely available methods (software). This bug inhibits this control. Which was their only point to begin with, as compared to "computation" devices like air.
Confusing people is the only tool left in Intel's toolbox.
I would assume that too, which is why I was surprised by GP's assertion.
Intel says yours falls under 4th Generation Intel Core processors. The PC World article you point to says 4th Generation Intel Core processors are affected.
Where do you find that it is not affected ?
For journeys to airports, I see people carry around 10 times the luggage on an average than they carry for other commutes / journeys within the city. To accommodate luggage that takes much more space than interstitial space between human beings, the design of the interior of the local transport needs to be vastly different.
If you design all transport to accommodate luggage, it wastes space. If you don't design the airport transport to accommodate luggage, it might get too crowded to carry luggage while mounting and disembarking from the transit. If you design only the transit serving the airport to accommodate luggage - that is difficult to do as the idea of the transit is to serve multiple purposes in a unified manner.
Do you see any solution for carrying luggage other than over-designing ?
You're confusing me with yourself, it is you who tried to insult me. Though reality, on the other hand, has insulted you more, as you were trying to make statements about subjects you didn't know much about. I'm sorry but I played no part in it.
my answer clearly referenced this question, and answered this question
The question, if that part was a question, was posed to the TFA. Anyway, how did you answer it ? You describe a completely different strategy from the one described in TFA - where there is a seeming impersonation of e.g. a jew, rabbi etc.
only have access to if I were involved in the creation of the bot
Which is why "or I missed something" is prefixed with disappointment about the TFA.
Anyway, you admit your ignorance and I couldn't agree more.
Spot the question mark.
Question :
and then designed a bot to identify duplicate accounts held by those who fulfilled those criteria.
This has always intrigued me. How do bots accomplish this ?
Your long answer : not about how bots identify duplicate accounts but how duplicate accounts are created, what is posted in them, what every such data share from sock puppets accounts achieves etc.
The only time you went anywhere close to answering the question was a vague guess about shared emails.
I have specifically pointed out that I have no more information about their methodology than is presented in the article
I will try to never again accuse you of having any information.
I'm not sure how the bots identified them, shared emails possibly.
They take so much care to not cross pollinate, and then go ahead and use shared emails which are trivial to create en masse so that they don't have to share emails. Interesting.
You have missed something. The point is ....... unwitting people, who all agreed that supporting the troops was good, and animal abuse was bad.
I didn't ask how it is done, I asked how it is detected, that too by bots. First the article and now you, giving exactly the information that is useless, but just tantalizingly close to the real thing. I think you're trying to "steer people towards certain views", but it is not working for me. Try on sheep.
If the article had any evidence of having evidence of the "sock-puppet accounts" belonging to Nazis, I guess they could have provided. Such long winded justification that you are having to manufacture is weak evidence of the article being bullshit. Along with there being no evidence of it not being bullshit that I have been pointing out. I'm still not concluding it is bullshit, but leaning that way, provisionally.
The designers evaluated known Nazi users based on specific criteria, symbology, stated beliefs etc
Humanly ? Any process used to eliminate bias ?
and then designed a bot to identify duplicate accounts held by those who fulfilled those criteria.
This has always intrigued me. How do bots accomplish this ? They also need to make sure that these "sock-puppet" accounts copy pictures / symbology from the attacked community e.g. Jews - because this is one of the main accusations in TFA about them. TFA should have explained much more, or I missed something.
Because it amuses me to say that Nazis smell.
Well, you can say this for all humans, both ways. I.e. all humans emanate odour, and most detect odour through their noses. What is really amusing is when you can feel the smell in your eyes :)
In OSes and individual applications that might be in focus : clipboard stealing attacks commonly keep getting found, published, occasionally fixed. So you need to track a lot of vulnerabilities if you use copy and paste.
If they look like a Nazi, quack like a Nazi, make heavy use of Nazy symbology and espouse the same values, it's reasonablt to call them Nazis.
If you don't mind going back to the actual topic :
1. So the looks of those Twitter account operators were verified by the "bot" to be similar to those of Nazis ?
2. Their quacks ? Hopefully they had Nazi quacks archived somewhere for future reference ?
3. Symbology : this is interesting, because allegedly they adopted Jewish symbology - the tiny cap, pictures of Rabbis, labels like chief Rabbi of such and such place etc.
Do you have evidence that the bot or its operators had any evidence about actual Naziness of the operators of Sock Puppet Accounts (TM) ?
If it looks like a Nazi, Smells like a Nazi, holds the same views as a Nazi, and salutes like a Nazi, it is acceptable to call it a Nazi, and then punch it in it's stupid, ignorant, bigoted, Nazi, face.
Ok. Do you know how did the Twitter bot find out the smell and salute of the operators of those accounts which it calls are "Nazis" ?
Or did the designers of the Twitter bot go and find their smell and salute ? I don't see any evidence in the article linked in this /. story. Do you have that missing evidence ?
Then you are quite easy to manipulate into not rallying.
"They were Nazis".
How did the bot figure this out ? From the article, " curated database " appears to signal that impersonators were determined by human beings and put in the database. Is this not true ?
So now we are down to believe that these people determined "Nazis" honestly and correctly. That requires looking into the heart of these alleged "Nazis". Doesn't seem likely. Metrics to determine the probability of the operator of a Twitter account being Nazi are not mentioned in the article.
Touch screen keyboard.
s/taking/talking/
" It does output some answers that aren't on your list. So who's smarter ? "
Are you taking only about AI systems personally trained by you ?
You seem to want to reduce things to absurd levels for some reason.
You are confusing me with yourself.
You said that it doesn't even matter if AI has to be taught. And this is the real answer twice over. This was the most absurd level in this thread. It contradicts many of your statements in this recent post about both starting at 0 and improving with training.
Since everyone involved here has to be taught, by your "original" statement, it doesn't matter for anyone.
I never made statements reduced to such absurd level.
No one has made this point "originally". If you mean ledow , his original point was mainly that the AI is not really "intelligent" (as if means anything in particular) due to not being able to explain WHY [sic] the decision was made.
He shifted to this new definition of "you can say we have AI" later - which included answering over and above the list of options.
The real real answer is that it doesn't matter as long as we have to teach the AI in the first place.
So which human could identify a rifle on the moment of their birth ?
If real real answer to the question is that no one is "smarter", does smarter really mean anything ?