All the research of this kind focuses on analysing the brain reactions to very specific actions, taking a big enough number of samples, generalising the conclusion to different people under different conditions, etc. According to the linked article, they are focusing on “decoding the words you’ve already decided to share by sending them to the speech center of your brain”.
No idea when a first reasonably accurate version will be ready, but I am sure about something: mind reading is completely out of question.
In the most likely scenario, nobody in the past would take you seriously and you would not change anything; you might even not survive for too long (quite hard times). But even if you were able to perform such a miraculous change and be appraised and remembered for it, nobody in the future would really care: the alternative-future black people wouldn't be able to feel any relief by knowing about someone who stopped what never happened and with what they could ever feel any close connection (like nowadays white people or black people in other countries).
If you would let slavery go for some years and then fully abolished it, you might become a hero (or, at least, lots of people would know about you). Ironic, don't you think? If you do what is absolutely best (even by promoting it as much as possible), nobody would care; but if you manage the situation adequately (= speculate with its possible outcomes), you might become a hero or even a saint. What seems to indicate that most of those who are regarded as heroes/saints might not have (voluntarily or coincidentally) performed the best possible actions under the given conditions.
DISCLAIMER: I think that time-travelling is completely and absolutely impossible. On the other hand, I do think that some theory, experiment or person claiming otherwise might appear at some point.
Note that Steppenwolf might be too dense for some people (who should better try Siddhartha, completely different but very nice too). It basically critics the bourgeois society of the first half of the 20th century and it is surprisingly descriptive (even too conservative) about today's accommodated society against anyone even slightly different.
A while ago, I read somewhere the following: "It's dangerous to go alone!", stated by a person trying to "educate" others (in his opinion, members of less-fortunate communities not sharing his fearful views) such that they can realise that they have to interact with others! Not because of not wanting to be alone or because of liking people around, but because they have to deal with others! Otherwise, they should be ashamed/scared of what others think, they have to get involved in social interaction (any, with anyone; the only important thing is having something and quickly, no matter how empty or meaningless this something might be) as soon as possible! They cannot be picky or search for what they really want, they have to choose something right away, to immediately find a cure for their illness! What makes them slightly different to that guy and scares that guy! How could not everyone do all what they can to make that guy as happy as possible (or, at least, what that guy thinks that makes him happy)? According to that person (and the associated trend of the minute), people have to learn to behave and to feel what they should, ironically this same person is likely to ignore anyone trying to follow his “wisdom” (random guy seeing the light: “You were right, I need to be more social. Do you want to do something today?”; wise man: “Sorry, but today I am too busy. We can do it some other day”, (to other people) “Ah! That sad guy wanting to always talk to me! Why doesn’t he get that I don’t like him?” (as sad as surprisingly common, at least in certain sadly-real areas)). The more ignorant, isolated (geographically or otherwise, like richness-wise) and coward (superficial, afraid to live/understand/do anything even slightly risky, etc.) the people, the more common to see misbehaviours on these lines.
I guess that the aforementioned reference of that random guy was mostly a reaction to the crazy person (39 yo like me, but probably with nothing else in common with me) who murderer some people (white people like me, but probably with nothing else in common with me) yesterday in the USA, but it reflects pretty well those fearful, ignorant and invasive (bourgeois-like) attitudes. This is what explains Brexit and Trump, but also generic prejudices or social-media unfairly bashing others (SJWs, if I may use that expression). Really sad or funny to watch, it depends upon your position, acceptation of reality and approach to life (hint: I laugh a lot).
"Humor alone, that magnificent discovery of those who are cut short in their calling to highest endeavor" [...] "humor alone (perhaps the most
inborn and brilliant achievement of the spirit)"
I am not the kind of guy who usually quotes others, but liked these sentences (written over 80 years ago!) a lot and felt like sharing them.
They're dialing up random phone numbers in western countries and using social engineering to scare suckers into giving them remote access
No. It is even sadder. They are relying on "designed website tricks unsuspecting, vulnerable users into believing they have a virus, and that they need to call the number shown on the site to help them out", what basically means the following: 1. The sucker visits a crappy site with likely illegal, unethical, immoral or similar content. 2. The sucker sees a popup saying that there is an error on the computer, that should call a number to fix it. 3. The sucker believes the whole story, calls that number and pays up to $1000.
In defence of the sucker, I have to say that I have seen some of these popups (while doing a very serious research on the computer of a neighbour of a friend or a friend:)) and are very persistent. Some popup blockers don't avoid them. The only way to get rid of this crap once it appears is by killing the browser, what might not be too straightforward for some users.
First thing coming to my mind was how can tech support for big companies be scammed? If my OS gets broken and I chose (not too likely to happen) to call their support, how are they intercepting my call? After skimming through the article, I understood what the terrible problem was: these pop-ups telling you that there is a virus on your computer! There are people actually believing the popup, reading the nonsense on it, calling to the given number and paying what people there tell them to pay!!
This seems a pretty crappy approach which is likely to be performed just by a few "companies", that's why the fact that most of scammers are in the same country makes lot of sense. Also why analysing the software used by the scammer to trick the victim? How can this be relevant here? Logically, if you want to access a computer in a different location you have to rely on certain software, exactly the same than using the phone to talk to someone.
Are people seriously so stupid to believe everything that pops-up in front of them? To even pay up to $1000 because basically a pop-up in a random (and most probably crappy and/or illegal) site told them to do so? How could these people not deserve to lose their money? How could anyone waste their time on analysing such a sad nonsense other than from the there-are-lots-of-stupids perspective?
Strong AI has the little problem that it does not exist as it is currently completely unknown how it could be created, despite about half a century of intense research
There are different types of mistakes and misrecognising an image doesn't precisely belong to the easily-solvable group. I guess that people working on this learning-from-mistakes side is only targeting pretty simple situations; for example, after analysing the outputs for some time, automatically realising that certain input parameter is wrong and correcting it. The more complex errors (hopefully found before it is too late!) have to be fixed manually.
This is some amazing troll or insanity. Either way, well done.
I seriously recommend you to bring this conversation to a specialist such that you can get the most adequate help for you "condition". Here you have some hints: - Don't you think that your actions should pursued some goal (beneficial, at least, to one other being) rather than repeating abstract ideas with no clear justification? - Rather than feeling frustrated or angry with words/ideas different than yours, why don't you try to either understand them or to plainly ignore them (and live happy among "people" like you)? - Why don't you try to use words which you fully understand and which are, at least, partially applicable to the specific situation (your previous reference to bot made the same sense than your current one to troll. Trolling what? Why? Being part of a conversation without agreeing with you is trolling? Don't you think that there has to be something wrong with a person coming to such ridiculous conclusion?)? - In general, you should try to avoid situations causing you any kind of distress (apparently, open discussions and not extremely simple ideas do). Also it might be better for your evident lack of self-esteem to not arbitrarily attack people who might defend themselves (in a conversation, I guess that virtually anyone can easily beat your fanatic stupidity) and/or try to avoid being in intrinsically weaker positions (e.g., arbitrarily criticising someone not minding you at all or writing anonymously).
Thanks for the compliment although, in comparison with "people" like you, I certainly do everything well, even insulting. Please, feel free to ask me for help in case you find problems to understand any part of this comment (or your carer isn't around).
Thanks for sharing the link. First time I hear about that, but know about quite a few other things on these lines (some of them from Intel too). I see all this precisely as a proof that they are losing. They are spending lots of money (all what matters to them) to stop the threats which they are claiming that don't exist anymore.
The online industry is extremely scared of piracy and, as what usually happens with anyone being too scared, isn't making the best decisions. Forcing or prohibiting or lying or similar will always fail, unlikely fair prices and expectations. For example, if every 10 users, there are 5 potential pirates, focus on the 5 paying ones, assume that you have lost the other 5 and just try to gain some of them back. More aggressive actions are very unlikely to provoke these people to not pirate and might even convince some of the paying ones to stop doing so. They might even see the 5 pirates as a secondary revenue source (e.g., giving good feedback about the product and how nice and practical was the company's behaviour). Basically, accepting the reality and adapting their behaviour accordingly.
Let me put it in other way. We all know that many governmental/private companies are systematically collecting information about everyone, that virtually any electronic device can be tracked, that there is almost no way to keep something completely secret. But, honestly, despite all that do you have any problem to do what you want when you want to do it? Is your internet experience much worse now than what it was years ago? Mine is certainly not. I can even put it in a different way: you know about all this tracking issues now, but what does make you think that all this is new. Perhaps this has always been the case, but you have now more information about it than before. Perhaps all this over-information isn't always delivered by freedom fighters wanting to share information about invasive behaviours; perhaps some times, people sharing that information want to make you more afraid, to think twice before doing anything "wrong". Who knows for sure, right?
Why do I think that piracy is winning? Because I see that it is still possible to get pirated anything (despite all these people saying how bad is everything becoming). Because I see how the business models of certain types of companies have evolved. Because I see how the prices of certain goods have dropped down or, at least, can be acquired in much more convenient ways. Whom should I trust? People saying me that what is beneficial to them has actually happened or the reality which I see around me?
Exactly as I thought. You are crazy person or a bot.
?! Seriously, can you read? And/or understand simple concepts? A bot? Do you know what a bot is? How could any bot have written what I did? Have I created the best-understanding bot ever and let it here talk with a random anonymous COWARD?!
Are you aware about the fact that you are posting anonymously, the one who started bothering me for no clear reason with an aggressive attitude (seriously expecting me to fix your clear understanding limitations, like being convinced that this is my obligation?!) and the one who doesn't seem to get almost anything right? Do you seriously think that this your place? Let me answer this one for you: it isn't. Your place is extremely far away from people like me and places where people like me go, like this site (sometimes, to make fun of people like you).
Perhaps you have corporate masters, but I only have corporate slaves.
They do all what I want when I want it. When I feel generous, I throw a coin or two in their direction. When they don't behave exactly as I want, I stop throwing coins. Sometimes, I even stop throwing coins for no reason, just to show them who the master is. Although they always seem happy and do all what I say, they are greedy and dishonest beings (logically, much below any living being, that's why slavery is acceptable for them) always ready to get an unfair advantage; that's why I am never understanding with their mistakes.
They are also extremely stupid and keep dreaming about becoming my masters! They keep collecting all what I throw at them (mostly useless crap) without even knowing what to do with any of this (the reality? There is nothing of value there, but they get distracted and don't bother me too much). Their "lives" are just a bunch of obsessive repetitions exclusively fuelled by their greedy and sick obsessions. Really sad beings, although they also have some funny moment (usually, pathetically funny).
You have demonstrated you have no clue what this is about.
It is curious, because you have demonstrated me your poor understanding capabilities via not being able to adequately understand my original intention and my additional explanations, not even the exact value of your opinion (as described below).
It matches known video to known video without ever caring what the video content is or ever being able to understand the video
I know. Again, I took the "video" (word if you wish) as an excuse to write a comment which some people might find interesting. This comment wasn't meant to be directly related to the original article, just to the eventuality of having to deal with video-related information.
No pixels need to be rendered, displayed, analyzed or considered
I will try it again. Let's imagine that your HTTPS-analysing tool can recognise 100 videos and you use this tool to know what 5000 users do. You reached this point by only knowing about HTTPS analysis and by assuming that video recognition is pretty simple (-> what seems a common misconception, the one which my original comment tried to address!!!). Now you want to see whether there are common patterns among these 5000 users (each of them using different videos among the 100 ones), at this point, the aforementioned NEXT LOGICAL STEP, you have to deal with these videos ( you initially store a minimal information about them in the database because you thought that video recognition was very easy), this is the point where my comment becomes relevant. If you want to deal with certain type of information (videos, in this case), it is quite likely that, at some point and for whatever reason, you will want to know all what you can about that type of information and the usual requirements of most of actions dealing with it. This was the whole point of my comment!! A somehow related, perhaps not even too relevant, reference! Nothing to do with understanding or not what the article was about! Nothing to do with the main intention of the article! Why do you want to see a hidden meaning in my words? Why do you want to see complexity and impossibility of understanding regarding something which is pretty simple (breaking encrypted information via recognising some parts by comparing them with previous samples! where is the difficulty to understand that?)?!
There are a lot of uses of this but I don't see a single use that requires any analysis of video information
You have an example in the paragraph above, but let me propose you a scenario. Imagine that you are working for Google (or for any other big company collecting tons of information about anything what their users do) and you are in charge of developing a tool to collect social security numbers. Wouldn't you find (even slightly) helpful any information about the way in which those numbers might be used to access certain service (or even simpler: about an algorithm confirming/dismissing their validity)? The current scope of your work has nothing to do with that (you have only to blindly collect numbers), but in your future activity (or the one of your company) that information is likely to become relevant. You might want to ignore it for the time being or not. But why do you keep saying me that I don't understand that your current work is just collecting information rather than analysing that information! I have understood you the first time you said it, but I am plainly saying something which is somehow related with what you are currently doing! You can ignore this information if you wish, but don't invent a nonexistent meaning or interpret what isn't there! Is seriously so difficult to understand?
You have demonstrated you have no clue what this is about.
then I would believe you have any clue what you are talking about
?! (start of sarcasm)OK, sorry boss for having failed you. Next time, I will try my level best to not let you down because, as you perfectly know, your opinion about what I know, do and expect is all what matters to me. (end of sarcasm).
... but he shouldn't deliver such wrong statements. Piracy (or whatever you prefer to call it) is far from dead and, IMHO, is actually winning the war. Fee-based business dealing with the most demanded and easily-copyable goods (e.g., videos or music) have went through a tremendous evolution in the right direction (the one which is beneficial for the the highest number of people), mainly thanks to the tremendous impact of piracy and sites like The Pirate Bay.
I have seen a signature around of a Japanese proverb about a nail which describes pretty well what happened to this guy: he was the most important one and, consequently, the easiest target. But this doesn't mean that everyone else has to go through the same problems. Exactly the same than the fee-based businesses had to adapt their offer to compensate the loses from piracy, perhaps he should have modified his activity to survive.
This comment isn't meant to be pro-piracy (how could I know anything about that if I don't even own a boat!:)), but just pro-reality, pro-honesty, pro-the interest-of-the-many and against egoist and unfair impositions from monopolistic alternatives. Saying that big corporations have won this war is clearly wrong and precisely this guy shouldn't support such a misleading idea. If he seriously believes in something other than getting money for himself, he should better think twice before coming to certain conclusions and/or stop thinking that the whole world (of piracy) starts and ends with him.
As said, I understood what this article was about. But this specific research, other than proving a generic lack (limitations in the HTTPS security), is focused on a specific issue: getting video-related information. I plainly took advantage from this fact to highlight a somehow related issue which I thought that some people might find interesting.
it proves (once again) that encryption is not the answer to all privacy problems
It only proves that a specific encryption should be further improved. Although no encryption will ever be the one and only solution for all the privacy concerns, as far as all of them are likely to be fallible (at least, at some point).
It is not about image recognition. It is about recognition of encrypted content.
Yeah, I know. I was trying to give some insights into the apparently-not-evident-to-everyone difficulty of the most logical next step: maximising the information which they collected.
This story is about recognizing patterns in traffic
I got it. My comment was about the next logical step (= what do with that information?), which some people seem to think that is pretty trivial when it isn't.
This article talks about matching videos with known ones what, unlikely what some people seem to think, is pretty much all what automated image (or video) recognition is about. For example, recognising that a given picture contains a house is usually the result of having compared the given pixels against the ones in a training set of images with houses. Almost any variation with respect to the training image has a relevant impact on this process (e.g., different structure, colours, positions, distorted pixels, etc). Additionally, these analyses usually consume lots of hardware resources.
Even in case of getting a perfect copy of the original video, just automating the recognition of its contents would represent a further layer of complexity. Something like separating the videos about sports from the ones about movies would be very difficult; virtually impossible when dealing with random inputs and expecting a high enough accuracy.
Someone has to watch you 24/7 to make sure that you do everything as you should? Like a kleptomaniac or a small kid? I assume that now there is a person in your office regularly checking that all what you do is fine. OK, in that case I guess that remote work is a bad idea for your company.
But by assuming workers with no pride in their work and not too solid moral values who need to be forced to do what they should (never met any programmer like this), I see other problems with your theory: - Your job has to be affordably replaceable. This approach is certainly not acceptable for highly-specialised positions. - Eventual responsibility for bad outputs. You could even lose your job because of other person's incompetence. - Dealing with unexpected issues. For example, your boss suddenly calling you to talk about what only the person working on the project knows.
I like remote work because it allows me to work from anywhere. At least in theory, because this format isn't still too popular and there are lots of restrictions. For things like programming, I expect it to gradually become a widely accepted alternative.
In this context, "knowing how it works" is the kind of expression that people with low-to-no specific knowledge uses when expecting an explanation which they can perfectly understand (funny & surprisingly realistic video to illustrate this point), what is almost impossible when dealing with virtually any not-too-simple algorithm. It is certainly possible to come up with a nice summary, but it wouldn’t deliver what is expected (the audience being able to understand most of the outputs/replicate the code from those words).
The situation of AI (or complex enough algorithms or automated systems trying to emulate human understanding or whatever you wish to call it) is even trickier as far as it is associated with an almost infinite increase of complexity. In these cases, "knowing how it works" can be considered impossible even in its among-experts variant. How could anyone know about the exact reason for each output (or most of them) of an increasingly complex system? Let's consider a computer chess (or go or any other game where computers can already beat humans) engine: how could you expect a human to understand the justification for each move? In that case, humans would be able to beat computers! Is it possible for a person to fully analyse and understand each single move of the computer? Sure, computers don't play randomly, but exactly as instructed by their algorithms. On the other hand, such an analysis would take too much time and effort to be performed on a more or less regular basis. A person who cannot beat a computer isn't able, by definition, to (more or less immediately) understand all what it does.
In summary, fully understanding the reasons why a complex enough (AI) algorithm does what it does is practically impossible; when talking about increasingly-complex algorithms, this practical impossibility becomes absolute. This is precisely one of the reasons why the "real AI" (as shown in movies or dreams of some people) is very unlikely to ever become a reality: how could we create an extremely complex system formed by virtually perfect parts? When has the humankind performed such a perfect master piece? The work, mistakes and learned lessons of many people would have to be taken into account, everything without errors and fully synchronised. A different story is creating small-scope decision makers, by adequately understanding what “small scope” means in this context; for example, creating a machine able to understand/interact with a random 3D situation as a baby would do is extremely difficult.
Their site is still up and contains lots of information which some people might want to read like history/expectations and licenses (they sell you the right to participate in the development of their intellectual property!).
Without even coming into the technical aspects of Hyperloop, its feasibility and motivation/expectations (as highlighted in one of my previous comments here, this video summarises quite well my ideas on this front), the exact relationship between this company and Hyperloop is interestingly unclear.
Thanks for reminding me about Siddhartha! I also want to re-read this one (loved it). I didn't like Demian too much, found it quite neutral/predictable; this and The Glass Bead Game (found it boring and didn't even finish it) are the Hesse's books which I liked the less.
No idea why you are making a reference to racism when talking about a Herman Hesse book, pretty much the opposite to what this author represents (i.e., multi-culture, tolerance, peace, etc.). On the other hand, what is the meaning of words/intention anymore, mainly in internet, right? Saying whatever about anything is as good as right the contrary. For some people, using a word like racism to attack anything or anyone is as easy as saying "hi", isn't it? Additionally, what is the exact point of saying of your "There's some racism hidden in one of those"? Is this a riddle which I have to solve? (to prove what? to whom?). Are you sure that you have read these books (and/or understand them)? Your personality doesn't seem Hesse-compatible to me.
Yes, I see the same now. Note that I haven't ever seen that weird behaviour before (using Slashdot since over 2 years ago?). Anyway, I guess that it was just a curious output triggered by a kind of buggy sub-part under very specific conditions.
Slashdot Mirror
All the research of this kind focuses on analysing the brain reactions to very specific actions, taking a big enough number of samples, generalising the conclusion to different people under different conditions, etc. According to the linked article, they are focusing on “decoding the words you’ve already decided to share by sending them to the speech center of your brain”.
No idea when a first reasonably accurate version will be ready, but I am sure about something: mind reading is completely out of question.
I'll be a hero to every black person in the USA
In the most likely scenario, nobody in the past would take you seriously and you would not change anything; you might even not survive for too long (quite hard times). But even if you were able to perform such a miraculous change and be appraised and remembered for it, nobody in the future would really care: the alternative-future black people wouldn't be able to feel any relief by knowing about someone who stopped what never happened and with what they could ever feel any close connection (like nowadays white people or black people in other countries).
If you would let slavery go for some years and then fully abolished it, you might become a hero (or, at least, lots of people would know about you). Ironic, don't you think? If you do what is absolutely best (even by promoting it as much as possible), nobody would care; but if you manage the situation adequately (= speculate with its possible outcomes), you might become a hero or even a saint. What seems to indicate that most of those who are regarded as heroes/saints might not have (voluntarily or coincidentally) performed the best possible actions under the given conditions.
DISCLAIMER: I think that time-travelling is completely and absolutely impossible. On the other hand, I do think that some theory, experiment or person claiming otherwise might appear at some point.
Note that Steppenwolf might be too dense for some people (who should better try Siddhartha, completely different but very nice too). It basically critics the bourgeois society of the first half of the 20th century and it is surprisingly descriptive (even too conservative) about today's accommodated society against anyone even slightly different.
A while ago, I read somewhere the following: "It's dangerous to go alone!", stated by a person trying to "educate" others (in his opinion, members of less-fortunate communities not sharing his fearful views) such that they can realise that they have to interact with others! Not because of not wanting to be alone or because of liking people around, but because they have to deal with others! Otherwise, they should be ashamed/scared of what others think, they have to get involved in social interaction (any, with anyone; the only important thing is having something and quickly, no matter how empty or meaningless this something might be) as soon as possible! They cannot be picky or search for what they really want, they have to choose something right away, to immediately find a cure for their illness! What makes them slightly different to that guy and scares that guy! How could not everyone do all what they can to make that guy as happy as possible (or, at least, what that guy thinks that makes him happy)? According to that person (and the associated trend of the minute), people have to learn to behave and to feel what they should, ironically this same person is likely to ignore anyone trying to follow his “wisdom” (random guy seeing the light: “You were right, I need to be more social. Do you want to do something today?”; wise man: “Sorry, but today I am too busy. We can do it some other day”, (to other people) “Ah! That sad guy wanting to always talk to me! Why doesn’t he get that I don’t like him?” (as sad as surprisingly common, at least in certain sadly-real areas)). The more ignorant, isolated (geographically or otherwise, like richness-wise) and coward (superficial, afraid to live/understand/do anything even slightly risky, etc.) the people, the more common to see misbehaviours on these lines.
I guess that the aforementioned reference of that random guy was mostly a reaction to the crazy person (39 yo like me, but probably with nothing else in common with me) who murderer some people (white people like me, but probably with nothing else in common with me) yesterday in the USA, but it reflects pretty well those fearful, ignorant and invasive (bourgeois-like) attitudes. This is what explains Brexit and Trump, but also generic prejudices or social-media unfairly bashing others (SJWs, if I may use that expression). Really sad or funny to watch, it depends upon your position, acceptation of reality and approach to life (hint: I laugh a lot).
"Humor alone, that magnificent discovery of those who are cut short in their calling to highest endeavor" [...] "humor alone (perhaps the most inborn and brilliant achievement of the spirit)"
I am not the kind of guy who usually quotes others, but liked these sentences (written over 80 years ago!) a lot and felt like sharing them.
They're dialing up random phone numbers in western countries and using social engineering to scare suckers into giving them remote access
No. It is even sadder. They are relying on "designed website tricks unsuspecting, vulnerable users into believing they have a virus, and that they need to call the number shown on the site to help them out", what basically means the following:
:)) and are very persistent. Some popup blockers don't avoid them. The only way to get rid of this crap once it appears is by killing the browser, what might not be too straightforward for some users.
1. The sucker visits a crappy site with likely illegal, unethical, immoral or similar content.
2. The sucker sees a popup saying that there is an error on the computer, that should call a number to fix it.
3. The sucker believes the whole story, calls that number and pays up to $1000.
In defence of the sucker, I have to say that I have seen some of these popups (while doing a very serious research on the computer of a neighbour of a friend or a friend
First thing coming to my mind was how can tech support for big companies be scammed? If my OS gets broken and I chose (not too likely to happen) to call their support, how are they intercepting my call? After skimming through the article, I understood what the terrible problem was: these pop-ups telling you that there is a virus on your computer! There are people actually believing the popup, reading the nonsense on it, calling to the given number and paying what people there tell them to pay!!
This seems a pretty crappy approach which is likely to be performed just by a few "companies", that's why the fact that most of scammers are in the same country makes lot of sense. Also why analysing the software used by the scammer to trick the victim? How can this be relevant here? Logically, if you want to access a computer in a different location you have to rely on certain software, exactly the same than using the phone to talk to someone.
Are people seriously so stupid to believe everything that pops-up in front of them? To even pay up to $1000 because basically a pop-up in a random (and most probably crappy and/or illegal) site told them to do so? How could these people not deserve to lose their money? How could anyone waste their time on analysing such a sad nonsense other than from the there-are-lots-of-stupids perspective?
Strong AI has the little problem that it does not exist as it is currently completely unknown how it could be created, despite about half a century of intense research
There are different types of mistakes and misrecognising an image doesn't precisely belong to the easily-solvable group. I guess that people working on this learning-from-mistakes side is only targeting pretty simple situations; for example, after analysing the outputs for some time, automatically realising that certain input parameter is wrong and correcting it. The more complex errors (hopefully found before it is too late!) have to be fixed manually.
This is some amazing troll or insanity. Either way, well done.
I seriously recommend you to bring this conversation to a specialist such that you can get the most adequate help for you "condition". Here you have some hints:
- Don't you think that your actions should pursued some goal (beneficial, at least, to one other being) rather than repeating abstract ideas with no clear justification?
- Rather than feeling frustrated or angry with words/ideas different than yours, why don't you try to either understand them or to plainly ignore them (and live happy among "people" like you)?
- Why don't you try to use words which you fully understand and which are, at least, partially applicable to the specific situation (your previous reference to bot made the same sense than your current one to troll. Trolling what? Why? Being part of a conversation without agreeing with you is trolling? Don't you think that there has to be something wrong with a person coming to such ridiculous conclusion?)?
- In general, you should try to avoid situations causing you any kind of distress (apparently, open discussions and not extremely simple ideas do). Also it might be better for your evident lack of self-esteem to not arbitrarily attack people who might defend themselves (in a conversation, I guess that virtually anyone can easily beat your fanatic stupidity) and/or try to avoid being in intrinsically weaker positions (e.g., arbitrarily criticising someone not minding you at all or writing anonymously).
Thanks for the compliment although, in comparison with "people" like you, I certainly do everything well, even insulting. Please, feel free to ask me for help in case you find problems to understand any part of this comment (or your carer isn't around).
Thanks for sharing the link. First time I hear about that, but know about quite a few other things on these lines (some of them from Intel too). I see all this precisely as a proof that they are losing. They are spending lots of money (all what matters to them) to stop the threats which they are claiming that don't exist anymore.
The online industry is extremely scared of piracy and, as what usually happens with anyone being too scared, isn't making the best decisions. Forcing or prohibiting or lying or similar will always fail, unlikely fair prices and expectations. For example, if every 10 users, there are 5 potential pirates, focus on the 5 paying ones, assume that you have lost the other 5 and just try to gain some of them back. More aggressive actions are very unlikely to provoke these people to not pirate and might even convince some of the paying ones to stop doing so. They might even see the 5 pirates as a secondary revenue source (e.g., giving good feedback about the product and how nice and practical was the company's behaviour). Basically, accepting the reality and adapting their behaviour accordingly.
Let me put it in other way. We all know that many governmental/private companies are systematically collecting information about everyone, that virtually any electronic device can be tracked, that there is almost no way to keep something completely secret. But, honestly, despite all that do you have any problem to do what you want when you want to do it? Is your internet experience much worse now than what it was years ago? Mine is certainly not. I can even put it in a different way: you know about all this tracking issues now, but what does make you think that all this is new. Perhaps this has always been the case, but you have now more information about it than before. Perhaps all this over-information isn't always delivered by freedom fighters wanting to share information about invasive behaviours; perhaps some times, people sharing that information want to make you more afraid, to think twice before doing anything "wrong". Who knows for sure, right?
Why do I think that piracy is winning? Because I see that it is still possible to get pirated anything (despite all these people saying how bad is everything becoming). Because I see how the business models of certain types of companies have evolved. Because I see how the prices of certain goods have dropped down or, at least, can be acquired in much more convenient ways. Whom should I trust? People saying me that what is beneficial to them has actually happened or the reality which I see around me?
Exactly as I thought. You are crazy person or a bot.
?! Seriously, can you read? And/or understand simple concepts? A bot? Do you know what a bot is? How could any bot have written what I did? Have I created the best-understanding bot ever and let it here talk with a random anonymous COWARD?!
Are you aware about the fact that you are posting anonymously, the one who started bothering me for no clear reason with an aggressive attitude (seriously expecting me to fix your clear understanding limitations, like being convinced that this is my obligation?!) and the one who doesn't seem to get almost anything right? Do you seriously think that this your place? Let me answer this one for you: it isn't. Your place is extremely far away from people like me and places where people like me go, like this site (sometimes, to make fun of people like you).
we get what we deserve: corporate masters.
Perhaps you have corporate masters, but I only have corporate slaves.
They do all what I want when I want it. When I feel generous, I throw a coin or two in their direction. When they don't behave exactly as I want, I stop throwing coins. Sometimes, I even stop throwing coins for no reason, just to show them who the master is. Although they always seem happy and do all what I say, they are greedy and dishonest beings (logically, much below any living being, that's why slavery is acceptable for them) always ready to get an unfair advantage; that's why I am never understanding with their mistakes.
They are also extremely stupid and keep dreaming about becoming my masters! They keep collecting all what I throw at them (mostly useless crap) without even knowing what to do with any of this (the reality? There is nothing of value there, but they get distracted and don't bother me too much). Their "lives" are just a bunch of obsessive repetitions exclusively fuelled by their greedy and sick obsessions. Really sad beings, although they also have some funny moment (usually, pathetically funny).
You have demonstrated you have no clue what this is about.
It is curious, because you have demonstrated me your poor understanding capabilities via not being able to adequately understand my original intention and my additional explanations, not even the exact value of your opinion (as described below).
It matches known video to known video without ever caring what the video content is or ever being able to understand the video
I know. Again, I took the "video" (word if you wish) as an excuse to write a comment which some people might find interesting. This comment wasn't meant to be directly related to the original article, just to the eventuality of having to deal with video-related information.
No pixels need to be rendered, displayed, analyzed or considered
I will try it again. Let's imagine that your HTTPS-analysing tool can recognise 100 videos and you use this tool to know what 5000 users do. You reached this point by only knowing about HTTPS analysis and by assuming that video recognition is pretty simple (-> what seems a common misconception, the one which my original comment tried to address!!!). Now you want to see whether there are common patterns among these 5000 users (each of them using different videos among the 100 ones), at this point, the aforementioned NEXT LOGICAL STEP, you have to deal with these videos ( you initially store a minimal information about them in the database because you thought that video recognition was very easy), this is the point where my comment becomes relevant. If you want to deal with certain type of information (videos, in this case), it is quite likely that, at some point and for whatever reason, you will want to know all what you can about that type of information and the usual requirements of most of actions dealing with it. This was the whole point of my comment!! A somehow related, perhaps not even too relevant, reference! Nothing to do with understanding or not what the article was about! Nothing to do with the main intention of the article! Why do you want to see a hidden meaning in my words? Why do you want to see complexity and impossibility of understanding regarding something which is pretty simple (breaking encrypted information via recognising some parts by comparing them with previous samples! where is the difficulty to understand that?)?!
There are a lot of uses of this but I don't see a single use that requires any analysis of video information
You have an example in the paragraph above, but let me propose you a scenario. Imagine that you are working for Google (or for any other big company collecting tons of information about anything what their users do) and you are in charge of developing a tool to collect social security numbers. Wouldn't you find (even slightly) helpful any information about the way in which those numbers might be used to access certain service (or even simpler: about an algorithm confirming/dismissing their validity)? The current scope of your work has nothing to do with that (you have only to blindly collect numbers), but in your future activity (or the one of your company) that information is likely to become relevant. You might want to ignore it for the time being or not. But why do you keep saying me that I don't understand that your current work is just collecting information rather than analysing that information! I have understood you the first time you said it, but I am plainly saying something which is somehow related with what you are currently doing! You can ignore this information if you wish, but don't invent a nonexistent meaning or interpret what isn't there! Is seriously so difficult to understand?
You have demonstrated you have no clue what this is about.
then I would believe you have any clue what you are talking about
?! (start of sarcasm)OK, sorry boss for having failed you. Next time, I will try my level best to not let you down because, as you perfectly know, your opinion about what I know, do and expect is all what matters to me. (end of sarcasm).
... but he shouldn't deliver such wrong statements. Piracy (or whatever you prefer to call it) is far from dead and, IMHO, is actually winning the war. Fee-based business dealing with the most demanded and easily-copyable goods (e.g., videos or music) have went through a tremendous evolution in the right direction (the one which is beneficial for the the highest number of people), mainly thanks to the tremendous impact of piracy and sites like The Pirate Bay.
:)), but just pro-reality, pro-honesty, pro-the interest-of-the-many and against egoist and unfair impositions from monopolistic alternatives. Saying that big corporations have won this war is clearly wrong and precisely this guy shouldn't support such a misleading idea. If he seriously believes in something other than getting money for himself, he should better think twice before coming to certain conclusions and/or stop thinking that the whole world (of piracy) starts and ends with him.
I have seen a signature around of a Japanese proverb about a nail which describes pretty well what happened to this guy: he was the most important one and, consequently, the easiest target. But this doesn't mean that everyone else has to go through the same problems. Exactly the same than the fee-based businesses had to adapt their offer to compensate the loses from piracy, perhaps he should have modified his activity to survive.
This comment isn't meant to be pro-piracy (how could I know anything about that if I don't even own a boat!
it proves (once again) that encryption is not the answer to all privacy problems
It only proves that a specific encryption should be further improved. Although no encryption will ever be the one and only solution for all the privacy concerns, as far as all of them are likely to be fallible (at least, at some point).
It is not about image recognition. It is about recognition of encrypted content.
Yeah, I know. I was trying to give some insights into the apparently-not-evident-to-everyone difficulty of the most logical next step: maximising the information which they collected.
This story is about recognizing patterns in traffic
I got it. My comment was about the next logical step (= what do with that information?), which some people seem to think that is pretty trivial when it isn't.
This article talks about matching videos with known ones what, unlikely what some people seem to think, is pretty much all what automated image (or video) recognition is about. For example, recognising that a given picture contains a house is usually the result of having compared the given pixels against the ones in a training set of images with houses. Almost any variation with respect to the training image has a relevant impact on this process (e.g., different structure, colours, positions, distorted pixels, etc). Additionally, these analyses usually consume lots of hardware resources.
Even in case of getting a perfect copy of the original video, just automating the recognition of its contents would represent a further layer of complexity. Something like separating the videos about sports from the ones about movies would be very difficult; virtually impossible when dealing with random inputs and expecting a high enough accuracy.
Someone has to watch you 24/7 to make sure that you do everything as you should? Like a kleptomaniac or a small kid? I assume that now there is a person in your office regularly checking that all what you do is fine. OK, in that case I guess that remote work is a bad idea for your company.
But by assuming workers with no pride in their work and not too solid moral values who need to be forced to do what they should (never met any programmer like this), I see other problems with your theory:
- Your job has to be affordably replaceable. This approach is certainly not acceptable for highly-specialised positions.
- Eventual responsibility for bad outputs. You could even lose your job because of other person's incompetence.
- Dealing with unexpected issues. For example, your boss suddenly calling you to talk about what only the person working on the project knows.
I like remote work because it allows me to work from anywhere. At least in theory, because this format isn't still too popular and there are lots of restrictions. For things like programming, I expect it to gradually become a widely accepted alternative.
In this context, "knowing how it works" is the kind of expression that people with low-to-no specific knowledge uses when expecting an explanation which they can perfectly understand (funny & surprisingly realistic video to illustrate this point), what is almost impossible when dealing with virtually any not-too-simple algorithm. It is certainly possible to come up with a nice summary, but it wouldn’t deliver what is expected (the audience being able to understand most of the outputs/replicate the code from those words).
The situation of AI (or complex enough algorithms or automated systems trying to emulate human understanding or whatever you wish to call it) is even trickier as far as it is associated with an almost infinite increase of complexity. In these cases, "knowing how it works" can be considered impossible even in its among-experts variant. How could anyone know about the exact reason for each output (or most of them) of an increasingly complex system? Let's consider a computer chess (or go or any other game where computers can already beat humans) engine: how could you expect a human to understand the justification for each move? In that case, humans would be able to beat computers! Is it possible for a person to fully analyse and understand each single move of the computer? Sure, computers don't play randomly, but exactly as instructed by their algorithms. On the other hand, such an analysis would take too much time and effort to be performed on a more or less regular basis. A person who cannot beat a computer isn't able, by definition, to (more or less immediately) understand all what it does.
In summary, fully understanding the reasons why a complex enough (AI) algorithm does what it does is practically impossible; when talking about increasingly-complex algorithms, this practical impossibility becomes absolute. This is precisely one of the reasons why the "real AI" (as shown in movies or dreams of some people) is very unlikely to ever become a reality: how could we create an extremely complex system formed by virtually perfect parts? When has the humankind performed such a perfect master piece? The work, mistakes and learned lessons of many people would have to be taken into account, everything without errors and fully synchronised. A different story is creating small-scope decision makers, by adequately understanding what “small scope” means in this context; for example, creating a machine able to understand/interact with a random 3D situation as a baby would do is extremely difficult.
Good one! I have never heard about this ETC3 Global Alliance company, but apparently they are closely related to Hyperloop. In July 2013, Elon promised to invest in their prototype and, one month later, "the outline of the original Hyperloop concept was made public"! Isn't this curious?
Their site is still up and contains lots of information which some people might want to read like history/expectations and licenses (they sell you the right to participate in the development of their intellectual property!).
Without even coming into the technical aspects of Hyperloop, its feasibility and motivation/expectations (as highlighted in one of my previous comments here, this video summarises quite well my ideas on this front), the exact relationship between this company and Hyperloop is interestingly unclear.
I meant "point of your" rather than "point of saying of your".
Thanks for reminding me about Siddhartha! I also want to re-read this one (loved it). I didn't like Demian too much, found it quite neutral/predictable; this and The Glass Bead Game (found it boring and didn't even finish it) are the Hesse's books which I liked the less.
No idea why you are making a reference to racism when talking about a Herman Hesse book, pretty much the opposite to what this author represents (i.e., multi-culture, tolerance, peace, etc.). On the other hand, what is the meaning of words/intention anymore, mainly in internet, right? Saying whatever about anything is as good as right the contrary. For some people, using a word like racism to attack anything or anyone is as easy as saying "hi", isn't it? Additionally, what is the exact point of saying of your "There's some racism hidden in one of those"? Is this a riddle which I have to solve? (to prove what? to whom?). Are you sure that you have read these books (and/or understand them)? Your personality doesn't seem Hesse-compatible to me.
By next week, I am planning to start re-reading some Herman Hesse books, probably Steppenwolf first. Afterwards, Orwell’s 1984.
Yes, I see the same now. Note that I haven't ever seen that weird behaviour before (using Slashdot since over 2 years ago?). Anyway, I guess that it was just a curious output triggered by a kind of buggy sub-part under very specific conditions.