Setting one pixel to black is not 100% fool proof unless you have only one pixel. There is a whole subfield of research, some of which uses AI, that attempts to reconstruct images that have been blacked out. There are some that do a surprising job under many circumstances; however, they are never anywhere close to 100% accurate and if you block out a whole face, for example, some of the AI systems will correctly put a face in, but it's a generic face which would be essentially useless for tracking some perpetrator. Although CSI "Enhance" is pure crap, some AI enhancing is pretty remarkable.
In particular, they'll lose the licenses necessary to export the goods or to import them if manufactured overseas.
No because (1) very, very few technologies require export licenses, and (2) when they do, it's not the DoD or the DoJ that issue licenses. If you are referring to the inability to export strong cryptography, then with very few exceptions (and, yes, made through the DoD to enable disseminating to close allies for military/government use only) you can't, whether you're Apple or John Doe. There is no "license" to allow you to export 40,000-bit, quantum-computing-unkrackable encryption -- it's just illegal. This has been circumvented by having (1) your dev team outside the US, so you are importing it into the US (which is currently largely legal, contrary to what you imply above), or (2) making the bit-depth configurable as PGP does, so what is exported is "legal" but when used it's configured to something stronger than would have been allowed.
[...] They can also lose government sales.
Meh. Only an issue if the government is your main or only target audience, in which case, do you individually really care if you bought something intended for the military and you find out that they can spy on you? (Note: having a backdoor on military tech is an even dumber idea, but we're not arguing if the government is always doing the smartest things). Apple, Google, Facebook, and even Microsoft are happy to play with the G-men, but none would abandon their 90% of non-government market
With abusive legal tactics such as "Patriot Act" orders, a company refusing to cooperate with orders for backdoors is vulnerable to extremely destructive legal and extra legal abuse from the FCC and from Homeland Security.
National security letters are the devil incarnate and can kill a startup and hamper almost any size company, but the FCC has nothing to do with them. Ajit Pai is a festering pustule poised to explode on the US's behind for a lot of good reasons, but not this one.
Is there any way to do some kind of real work in the process of generating this data[...]?
If by "real work" you mean work useful outside of the blockchain use case, the short answer: "not that we know of."
In order for the blockchain cryptocurrency ecosystem to work in a decentralized, zero-trust environment as intended, there cannot be any direction on what constitutes proof-of-work by a controlling entity (e.g., a person or organization). In order to create value in the currency and disable the ability for anyone to "print new bitcoins for free", new currency is created subsequent only to proof-of-work. (there are great videos that will explain this better than a short/. post).
How do you validate proof-of-work if there is no final arbiter or central bank? What is needed is a reliable, (somewhat) arbitrarily defined, increasing complexity task which poses a computational question with an answer which can be proved correct (or not) with few computational resources. Although we don't (and must not be able to know before hand) the "answer" to the question before hand, the class of computational problems of which we know that fit this paradigm are found in the cryptography or chaotic function realms (e.g., hashing functions).
Our current knowledge suggests that we probably wont find a class of problems that (1) is really hard to answer, (2) is really easy to check, and (3) the answers themselves are useful for solving real-world questions.
The real problem with what you say is there are better ways to heat your home than electricity. And if you do have to use electricity to do it even a modern heat pump is better than straight electric heating.
Actually, you missed the point entirely of the first question and response, since no one was asking "hey, should I start mining Bitcoins in order to heat my house?"
IF you are generating heat through computation, using it to heat your house is a significantly better solution than not. Period. Not using it, but then using a "more efficient" heat source makes things considerably worse.
The heat generated by computing is waste heat. If it is put to good use, it's a good thing. So, if you're going to create a lot of wast heat, you're doing the world a favor when you make good use of it. The problem is that "cryptocurrency" requires computationally intensive but otherwise (outside of the currency market) useless and meaningless work as proof-of-work. If that work were also socially beneficial (e.g., curing death), then using the excess heat to warm your LEED certifies Alaskan cabin would be a great thing all around.
You are successful in getting high scores on slashdot saying essentially the same thing (https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10552741&cid=54327851) so you're likely getting some part of your point across to some readers. That being said, saying that "we're nowhere close to AI" is misleading at best. "We are nowhere close to AI that resembles or acts like a human" is absolutely true; however, the AI that is learning about you right now is NOT an "expert system". Not even close. Expert systems are completely constrained (unless augmented with neural networks) by human programmers. The "sexy" AI we hear about on a daily basis are very much a black box, often with aggregated of artificial neural networks (ANNs). The fact that ANNs can be largely reduced to a set of discrete numerical outputs does not limit the complexity of their abilities at all. Bit have two discrete outputs but can represent unfathomably complex numbers and instruction sets when put together.
If it's a matter of lower quality, address that, whether it's because you constantly have junior females (they're leaving or you're just ramping up, for example) or not, you remove any bias in the code review. It's not rocket surgery. If you can't blind them all (doubtful in a company the size of FB) then blind some randomly. If the difference goes away (as does happen, see Google studies and Harvard studies on code reviews and acceptance rates when gender is blinded), the problem solved, at least for code. Move on to next problem.
The chip does NOTHING in the USA except make the whole process take longer.
This.
I don't understand why more customers and retailers are not screaming bloody murder over this. Retailers are losing billions because they either have to staff more checkouts and have longer lines (and irritated customers). Customers should be pissed off since they wait longer, have to do more (insert, wait, pin or sign or do the hokey pokey, remove the card when you get that fart sound).
The United States is now the country of security theater that pisses everyone off (e.g., TSA) does nothing to increase security (read the DoD and Homland Sec's own reports) and everyone seems to accept it. God I love and hate my country....
A lot of datasets are owned by corporations that are very protective of their copyrights. Elsevyr
Elsevier:For US government employees, works created within the scope of their employment are considered to be public domain and Elsevier's publishing agreements do not require a transfer or license of rights for such works.
In the UK and certain commonwealth countries, a work created by a government employee is copyrightable but the government may own the copyright (Crown copyright). Click here for information about UK government employees publishing open access
I won't even bother to comment on your subsequent bullshit and fear mongering You just don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, it's fine to require the EPA to make its data available freely: it's good for science, it's good for politics, and it's good for the people. Your delusion that in order for the EPA to do good science, it needs to keep it secret is utterly ludicrous.
Elsevier just says that original work created by the US Government does not need to transfer copyright to Elsevier for that original work in order for it to be published by Elsevier in one of the their journals.
What you cite is completely irrelevant to what people are worried about.
Elsevier does not allow anyone in the license to re-publish work of others which is apparently what this law would require in order for the EPA to consider any science.... therefore.... wait for it... the EPA would still not be able to use 99.99% of published science.
What Internet were you using? USENET, dial-in BBSs, and even MUDs were full of self-righteous condescending jackasses, trolls, and ragers well before AOL. I missed the unicorns and fairy Internet train I guess...
Unfortunately, there are no current or proposed market models that are shown to work (in simulation or in the real world) when a significant portion of the population is no longer among the producers of goods or services.
This is a huge problem. Remember that for the entire existence of any economy, whether a barter economy of 2,000 BCE or today, a majority of the population needed to be among producers of goods and services. Without that, the markets collapsed.
Another foreboding historical lesson is that when unemployment crosses 20%, social unrest increases, murder rates go up drastically, depression and suicide spike, and happiness tanks. PwC, Forbes, Gartner, and many others forecast between 35% to 47% jobs at risk over the next 7-15 years. That's around the corner, so let that sink in. And a recent poll found that the vast majority of workers think automation will take "someone else's" job. If you think it's "not my job" when AI code writers and debuggers are being deployed, white collar workers are in the cross hairs, and all manufacturing positions are at high right, you might want to pull your head out of the sand.
But supposedly we're going to barrel past 20% unemployment. So what has history taught us about unemployment passing 40%? Well, every instance has resulted in violent social unrest with at times up to 25% of the population being murdered. That does not sound too rosy.
OK, so universal basic income it is, right? Not so fast. See above. No economic model works even with UBI. What happens to inflation when 45% of adults don't do anything for their money? See, there is no good solution on the table.
The only thing pretty likely is that if you're worth well over $10M to $15M USD then you and your immediate family (of spouse and two kids) are probably OK for the next quarter century. That's less than one in 10,000 of the US population and less than on in about 10,000,000 of the world population. That's a lot of pissed off destitute people that might start popping up everywhere.
So if it gets bad, we'll have a revolution! *sigh* Good luck revolting against an AI augmented, robot-assisted, militarized police force (or private security) that knows who you've been talking to about what, where you are at any given point in time, and what you have been learning. Remember, the House and Senate just allowed more of your private data to be scooped up and monetized, and the US Constitution used to protect you against the Government invading your privacy, but never protected you from private citizens or companies (or private security). Good times ahead for all if you don't get involved NOW. 2020 is too late and AI is accelerating all timelines.
P.S.,(NOTE: Tinfoil hat time) if you think that you can just leave your burner cell phone at home, remove all the RFID tags in your clothes, credit cards, and grocery store discount cards from your person, and cover your face, alter your gait, change your height (all things used for automated recognition) or otherwise live off the grid, let me burst your bubble. Research from Stanford, MIT, WUSTL and other places show how many ways the people around you with all that stuff still active can make you trackable even if your were only wearing a gorrilla outfit. In short, don't get depressed, get involved. NOW. Trump, the alt-right, the Dems, the Neo-cons, the Commies, and even the Libertarians are not going to fix this.
Although there is research showing an increased prevalence of some general social dysfunction disorders (e.g., NPD and others which are often colloquially referred to as "sociopathy") among certain classes of occupations, I can find no serious research on "psychopathy" (not a real disorder or class of disorders) or any other empathy-deficient disorder with respect to their disproportionate prevalence in executive leadership. It intuitively seems like it might be likely, but anyone can pull that out of their ear. This is supposedly the expressed opinion of one or more panelists, none of which are even quoted directly and only two of which might claim any expertise in the area (but neither of which have published on this particular matter). In other words, sensationalist click bait.
P.S., I have opinions on this too, and they are worth about as much.
If this is the same suit filed against many other academic institutions, then the plaintiffs allege that the automatic captioning (among other things) is inadequate today. I will take that argument as true, though I would dispute it at least in part. Regardless, It is not relevant whether or not it will be one day adequate, as the ADA does not say it's OK to have an inaccessible building because "we can fix it later". The person needs to access the building / bathroom / course material / you name it now. This makes perfect sense until it has serious negative consequences for everyone.
The problem with the ADA is that it does not work as intended in this particular case. Under no circumstances would anyone say, "it costs too much to make all buildings ADA compliant, therefore we should just abandon all buildings and no one will have them." But when you have a tenant with special needs, it is reasonable to require that accommodations be made. Unfortunately, there is no reasonable equivalent to large-scale "giving away stuff for free" and so the ADA puts people in a horrible predicament if taken literally -- the predicament in which UC Berkeley among others finds itself.
The ADA expectation is that the content be accessible at the time of need and that it be made so by the institution. I, unfortunately, worry that this kind of suit will have to tremendously negative effects: (1) it will penalize the vast majority of the public because an important but still tiny minority cannot be granted the same level of access and, perhaps more importantly, (2) will seriously damage the public sentiment toward those less privileged, who quite seriously, do not need this. The latter should be of high concern to all ADA advocates. Basically, it will infuriate millions and further alienate other millions who are disadvantaged. Lose-lose if you ask me.
If the objective is to ensure wider access to those who have special needs, this not only does nothing to further that goal but damages future prospects of achieving that goal for everyone. Most of these institutions (especially the non-profit institutions) want to make the material available to everyone, disabled included, and I refuse to believe there is not a community-wide potential solution that is not universally damaging.
You are right that we have a long history of people crying wolf. As part of a course on the policy and ethical implications of AI, I am teaching the history of Luddite reactions from the printing press to the more recent robotic "revolution". Even recently with ATMs, there was a prediction of fewer branches and tellers which did not happen. So we're good right? Well...
Unfortunately, there is one thing that should stand out as being potentially different this time -- in previous instances of the Chicken Little scenarios, it was those who were worried about being displaced that were sounding the alarm, not those creating the technology. This time, it's the other way around. The vast majority of AI researchers, particularly in the private sector, are bullish on the elimination of most blue-collar and service jobs (even management and hedge fund investors are not safe) in the not too distant future. And if you have doubts, we have ample room to believe that the changes are not 50 years away:
A robot arm, trying to follow the same path over and over, will also produce very specific noise that could be detected.
Well, not quite.
Assuming the arm uses aggregated deep learning neural networks, it will (eventually) look like the same "person" clicking over and over again, but there is no guarantee that it will look like a "non-person". If you practice on CAPTCHAs 10,000 times, the variance with which you do things will be much smaller than someone who as only done it 10 times, but it will not make you a robot.
I have been a direct contributor and an executive. I have had a base salary of $53K (as well as no salary only equity) and of $416K. I have had total compensation that hit 7 figures (excluding shares I still own). I never give out my salary history, because it is irrelevant -- always. You tell me your range, I tell you if I can work with it, we dance, and we both decide if we want to keep the music going. Depending one the dance partners, the venue, and the music, the compensation requirements will change drastically.
I do not know any "A" player in my contacts who would do anything but walk away from someone who insists on knowing their previous compensation. If I ask you and you artfully dodge the question, you get brownie points. If you immediately cough up the details or get angry, you get docked a grade. Smart, competent people know it's not your business, know how to handle the question, and know to cut their losses if someone insists.
Although "academic-basis" is one way to generalize and dismiss, there are so many more "poor" families that 1%-ers that doesn't fully explain the issue. I spent quite a bit of time working and researching college admissions (during and after my time in university) and perhaps one of the big problems qualified students from "poor" families have getting admitted to "elite" schools is that even if they are qualified, they don't actually apply (which makes it really, really hard to attend).
The reasons are numerous, but often are attributable to fear and low-expectations (e.g., of getting rejected, figuring out how to pay, distance from family and support systems, etc). Unfortunately, this behavior is ultimately self-defeating in many ways as it sets a lower internal "baseline" for themselves to judge their future success. Some of these were outlined in the infamous 1999 Dale-Kruger research report summarized below...
Self-selection (selecting out by not applying, selecting in by over applying) whether voluntary or involuntary is an extraordinary challenge to overcome. It is far from the only problem, but one which has no good solution. If the application fee is $300, then the child of someone making $275,000 a year can apply to the top 30 schools, whether or not they are academically exceptional, while the child of someone behind on rent cannot. There are many more people with exceptional ability in the bottom 60% by income or net worth than in the top 1%, but there are several fold more who apply from the top 1% than from the bottom 60%. Those with fewer means are more likely to stay close to home, have access to fewer resources during their K-12 experience, have fewer opportunities to visit or interview, the list goes on and on. Even when application fees are waived and interviews are not required to be in person, someone from a less privileged socioeconomic background is less likely to apply to a school that is perceived as more "elite". The institutions that fair better (and none do wonderfully well) spend much more time and resources trying to pull in exceptional candidates from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Similar problems exist with other diversity groups and it is not limited to students - filling staff, faculty, and researchers with diverse exceptional candidates is an ongoing struggle.
Historically, social unrest increases with unemployment, with significant social unrest being a given with unemployment rates > 25%. You don't need 95% to have some serious problems.
All observed economies and accepted economic theories REQUIRE consumers and producers. There is no economic model, proposed or in history, that works when there are few or no human producers. No one knows what the economy will look like when 90% of things that are produced (from sourcing of resources to delivery to the home) without direct human contribution.
Every major company with a service component (restaurants, call centers, big box retailers, etc.) is experimenting with replacing more of their workforce with AI and computers. From tellers to cooks, from delivery drivers to therapists.
With every major luddite inspired Chicken Little scenario in the past, which we have successfully brushed off, it was those who feared getting displaced that were crying foul, not those creating innovation (printing press, loom, assembly lines, etc. etc.). This time, it's the AI innovators saying: "Hold on to your asses, cause this is going to hurt".
Unlike with other displacements, AI+robotics has, for the first time, a real potential for exponential growth once unleashed. That means that if it takes a dozen really slow robots two weeks to gather materials, refine them, create all components, and assemble another 12 robots, then if you start with 12, in a year you will have built 805,306,368 robots and 6.5 trillion in 18 months so long as you have access to resources and power. Exponential growth is a bitch, and once it starts, you have no time to go back and re-think "what do we do now". You have to start yesterday.
No one knows how quickly this will come to pass, but we know that the rate at which the rate of change is accelerating is accelerating (wrap your head around that). And with the ability to "merge" deep learning networks ("merge" in quotes, because it's not really merging), which I'm working on, you can almost make an AI learn 1,000 times faster by having 1,000 instances, so you are only limited by resources and costs.
(Almost) none of the clowns in the top 0.01% who control the means and resources, or those in policy creating positions, have a clue or, more likely, care what I'm talking about here. If I and my buddies own land resources, and don't need any of you producers to do anything, the best case scenario is that I act like an enlightened, benevolent despot (that worked out well in history), giving you food, shelter, and entertainment out of the goodness of my heart and just enough to keep you from ruining my day. This should concern you.
SkyNet will not wake up one day and decide to exterminate humanity, but a Kim-Jong Un or a Pol Pot might, and if they have a few trillion killer micro-drone robots, it's going to be a bad day.
So, the sky may not be falling, and we might not all be exterminated any time soon, but sticking our collective fingers in our ears and chanting "lalalalala" is a really, really bad idea.
I love Java, and still use it here and there. But...
Look at every single company whose products are software or services that went from not existing to being worth over $2B in the past 8 years. Look at how many based their product/service -- which are, of course, "larger than a simple script" -- on Java. In spite of 20% of development being in Java, over 90% of successful, novel, and high-impact development over the past 8 years is not based on Java. It might therefore be a good idea to rethink an absolutist stance on the value of a particular language before someone else eats your future lunches.
I am on my third group I've built in 15 years to be internationally recognized as "top 10" producer of science (and scientific systems licensing) with publications in Nature and Science. We release (BSD/GPL) about 90% of what we do and license 10% our work products (and even at only 10%, it's enough), including systems with over 250K lines of custom code. My CTO is one of the original authors of Java Language and he and I concur: anyone who believes that they should use "X" (including Java) for a broad class of problems or projects (e.g., "anything larger than a simple test script"), is far too rigid of a thinker to be on a team that aims to be the best of the best. Rigid thinking never produces breakthroughs.
Java is not dead, nor is it going away anytime soon, but if you believe that every problem is a nail and Java is the best hammer, you're not going to be in the top one tenth of one percent.
Probably, but not certainly. I'm not a physician, but am asked to review studies like this from time to time even by tier one journals. I've never been asked by JAMA, however, and they don't publish reviewers, so you're probably right. Even so, not all M.D.s who do research like this practice. Skepticism in this case seems reasonable, but far from a reason to toss the whole thing.
If you can find an actual flaw...
Here is a flaw: The entire study was done with contrived "vignettes" rather than actual cases. The vignettes were written by human doctors, so just because other human doctors were better than apps at reading between the lines and figuring out the intended diagnosis, does not mean that they would be better at diagnosing actual patients.
This is a very valid critique. We've known for decades that question biased has strong effects across different populations, so I would expect that doctors would perform better than random individuals if the questions were about planting flowers but written by doctors. I would, however, be surprised if they seemed like reasonable questions to the average person but that doctors scored 80% and others 40%, as the effect size is usually significant but small. Since this is doctors writing about docrtory stuff, maybe it could account for most of the variance, who knows.
I think there is only one clear conclusion from this study: Doctors really don't like these apps.
TL;DR: Misleading news article - Computers have been making things better for a long time if you control of who is inputting the data/answering questions. We're not getting rid of doctors any time soon, however.
We've known that M.D.'s are really bad at diangosing themselves, and that it's not because they have different knowledge when diagnosing themselves vs others, it's because humans are really crappy at self evaluation and generating unbaiased information and spectaculrarly crappy when it comes to themselves -- Apps don't help with that, at least not yet. so this study compared less biased evaluators with experience to extraordinarily biased evaluators with no experience using an App. Was the App enough to counter crappier input and no experience? Looks like a cliffhanger....
Yes, the outcome of this study is not surprising (Patients using Apps solo vs. Doctors) but the snipped and news article are misleading.
"Computers" have been helping to outperform physicians-only interations when it comes to arriving at the correct differential diagnosis, minimizing the number of tests asked for to arrive at the correct differential diagnostic, minimizing adverse events, and maximizing treatment impact for some time (first publication from out of MIT around 1999-2001 if anyone wants to find it for me), but never "in the wild" with patients doing it "solo".
So, having a nurse or a physician assistant walk through a patient a differential diagnosis and treatment program results in significantly better desired outcomes than having an M.D. do it without the help of such a program and has for quite time time; however, both patients and healthcare providers are unwilling to accept how this can be currently implemented, so it just does not work in real life. Note to Doctors, you're still worth something here since an M.D. waking patients through do better than RN and much better than a someone not trained in healthcare at all.
Having patients walk through themselves, however, shows pretty abysmal performance and has for 15 plus years, so "The analysis is believed to provide the first direct comparison between human-made and computer-based diagnoses" is probably the author saying that's what they believe, because folks in Biomedical Informatics know better.
But the benefit is not so clear. There is no evidence that the embedded chips have increased security wholesale "in the wild". The sum of all evidence so far (but not yet published) suggests that it's a wash. If there is an effect size, it's almost certainly going to be small. Moreover, notable experts in the field were skeptical of the claims and it was (and continues to be) largely those with conflict of interest who prance around saying that the chips will save the world (*cough* chip manufacturers, card makers, and dumbass CIO/CISO's who drank the kool aide and now need to cover their asses... *cough* *cough*).
Regardless of whether there is a (small) security benefit or not, the chip has added a significant burden to businesses and consumers, adding an average (again, not fully publish ready) of about 15-20 seconds per transaction. Let's assume that part of this added time is because people have not done the song and dance 100,000 times on average like we've learned to do with swipe (this seems unlikely, since there is a rapid drop in time the first 30 or so times someone uses them and then a plateau, for which we can control), and let's assume it's only 7 seconds. If it were 7 seconds for a lot more security, go for it! But at 7 seconds (go ahead and count them out as you pretend to impatiently wait for the person in front of you to finish) for statistically insignificant changes across a few million transactions -- that's bad all around. The added time means you have to have more cashiers on hand, your customers are less happy, and you lose some amount of business.
If these numbers pan out, I'm guessing that the CC companies will want to do something about it, because they do make more with higher numbers of transactions. Unfortunately, they just rammed something down the throats of a few million merchants, so they can't do that level of change again anytime soon. Which means that I silently want to smash that new card reader into the CC companies CIOs every time I'm asked to stick it in and wait for the *beerp berrp beerp* sound telling me it's finally over.
If Trump did not follow the law it would have been prosecuted and we would have a verdict. There is no such thing, and that fact bothers the shit out of people like you who find facts an inconvenience.
Rabid supporters of either candidate seem to have skipped the introduction to logic class in high school. You could have made a good point, but instead dove head first into fallacies. I won't break down how your claim directly implies that only people (other than a Clinton, of course) who have been found guilty of a a crime have committed a crime. But most people know that even with serious crimes many if not most do not get prosecuted, let alone punished. Absence of evidence that a crime was committed is not proof that one was not.
For those of you tempted to go "aha!", don't look to me for support. Unless you have evidence you're keeping to yourself, you have no reason to believe that DJ Trump committed any crimes.
From 3 pages of taxes in the 1990s we have gleaned 1 fact, that Trump took a loss. Everything else is speculation.
Now you're talking (though there are other facts, just really boring mundane facts you can't spin into a big cyclone). Yes, speculation and unfounded conjecture make for good click-bait fodder and news stories.
Meanwhile, Hillary is guilty of several laws which the FBI has simply refused to prosecute her for.
Ahhh, why did you go put on that tinfoil hat? "Trump ain't done no crimes cuz he aint been found guilty," "Clinton iz a felon, she just not been found guilty yet." You can't have it both ways. Then you go all batshit crazy calling her "the suspect" and talking about "secret meetings," alleging that the DNS is "colluding with mass media", etc. etc. etc.
Such high hopes crushed again by/.
By the way, just because you did not break a law (and therefore you had a right to do something) does not make you right. You have an absolute constitutional right which I will defend with my life to be a raging asshole to your fellow humans, but you would not be right to do so. That being said, neither Donald nor Hillary can claim to never have been dispicable.
Cthulhu 2016 - Why settle for the lesser of two evils, you wusses?
I think that there is a bit more than can be done than just adding resources, and the wrong place to put the liability is at the ISP or individual owner.
There are very good reasons not to push the liability to ISPs, not the least of which is that they will have all the more "legitimate" seeming reasons to push back on net neutrality, and ultimately we'd be pushing the resource problem to the ISP (to include hardware, software, support, insurance, litigation costs, etc.) which will in turn push them to customers and the like.
Pushing liability to the owner is, absurd. Have you made sure that your water meter is secure? Have to verified that your smart alarm, smart phone, fit bit, smoke detector, HVAC controller board, tankless water heater controller board, electric meter, alarm system, garage door opener, etc., etc., etc., are secure? Do we think it should be our, our parent's, and our children should get CISSP certification and secure those devices?
Attacking the problem will require more than just one solution, but one that is sorely missing is the liability of the producer of the IoT devices. The fact that we have CIOs and, shamefully, CISOs of some of the largest IoT device manufacturers possess a complete lack of understanding of what it takes to reasonably secure devices and communications is, in my not so humble opinion, a travesty. Even if you were trained as an oncologist, you cannot become a Chief Medical Officer of a Med-Tech company and then claim that "infectious diseases are not my speciality", nor can you hide behind board certification when your decisions (or lack thereof) result in harm to the users of your device. Why do we tolerate this with IT?
If you are the CIO/CISO of windmill controllers and say that you cannot be hacked from the Internet because "your devices use cellular networks" (read 4G internet), you should be fired on the spot and your company deserves to be crippled financially for having facilitated the creation of a botnet from your staggering ignorance. If you are a CIO/CISO of building control systems and you think that your smart thermostats do not need to be secured, because, who cares if they get hacked, you should suffer the same consequence. And here, I am talking about two of the biggest players in both fields, one of whom is still sadly my company's strategic partner.
Third, even if an actual human doesn't target you, automated systems might.
"might" should be "will". We are all being data mined right now. From our shopping habits at the local grocery store (frequent buyer cards, cc, RFID in your wallet/purse, WIFI MAC, etc.) to our browsing of "the Internets" (even in incognito - browser fingerprinting, session tagging, behavior analytics for mouse movement, clicking, scrolling). From our driving on the highway (photo metrics) to our walking in the park (location tracking on phones and cell towers). From your blood workup sent to the lab to the fact that you spent more time in the Target/Walmart diet supplement aisle (see grocery store). Even when you "go dark" by turning off your phone, removing the battery, that information is tied to us (and being used to locate "clandestine" meetings (see Bruce Schneier's research).
An automated system might decide to add you to to the no-fly list or similar, for reasons completely incomprehensible to you. As law enforcement automates more and more tasks, mistakes like this will become increasingly common. It's already happened in a few cases that innocent people have ended up on these lists, and that might have been done by humans; imagine how bad faulty software will be.
These are examples of things that might happen to an unlucky few, but not the examples of things that will happen and do happen. So the question becomes do you want an amorphous system with non-parametric machine learning churning over your data to create bubbles that are already being created? From the Ads you see to the news you get, decisions are being made for you. From the interest rates you're offered, to the amount of scrutiny you get when you apply for a job, these things are changing. Spurious correlations? The machine cares not, nor the buyers of the information. If by using deep learning and big data on people my marketing goes from 3% conversions to 3.1% conversions, it's probably worth it, even if it's still says that 8 year old Billy wants menopause pills. So who cares if the ads Billy gets are strange sometimes, but when it means that Jane will pay 0.1% more on a $500K 30 year mortgage, it starts to hurt, but it's OK, since you won't know it. And if you are flagged as a customer not work appeasing when you call your telco, it's OK too, because you won't know it. And when you get a few more "random" searches of your email, work, at the airport, it's OK, because you won't know it's because of this unfettered use of your data you're sprinkling everywhere liberally. And when your insurance refuses to pay for a medical procedure -- not because it would not have been covered, but because they're ML system said you're a sucker who probably won't fight it and if you do won't fight hard -- it's OK too, because you won't know it's because of all that data.
So do I wear a tinfoil hat? Nope. I'm one of the folks to can run your data through a deep learning exercise and increase marketing efficacy by 5% with 24,000% return on computing investment, but I don't. I turned down an offer to do so just 3 months ago for more money than I've made in my entire life (and I've done well). But the fact that I said "no thanks" because it made me feel like I needed to take a shower just for thinking about it does not change the fact that it took that company less than 6 weeks to find someone else who knew what they were doing to jump in and do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Setting one pixel to black is not 100% fool proof unless you have only one pixel. There is a whole subfield of research, some of which uses AI, that attempts to reconstruct images that have been blacked out. There are some that do a surprising job under many circumstances; however, they are never anywhere close to 100% accurate and if you block out a whole face, for example, some of the AI systems will correctly put a face in, but it's a generic face which would be essentially useless for tracking some perpetrator. Although CSI "Enhance" is pure crap, some AI enhancing is pretty remarkable.
In particular, they'll lose the licenses necessary to export the goods or to import them if manufactured overseas.
No because (1) very, very few technologies require export licenses, and (2) when they do, it's not the DoD or the DoJ that issue licenses. If you are referring to the inability to export strong cryptography, then with very few exceptions (and, yes, made through the DoD to enable disseminating to close allies for military/government use only) you can't, whether you're Apple or John Doe. There is no "license" to allow you to export 40,000-bit, quantum-computing-unkrackable encryption -- it's just illegal. This has been circumvented by having (1) your dev team outside the US, so you are importing it into the US (which is currently largely legal, contrary to what you imply above), or (2) making the bit-depth configurable as PGP does, so what is exported is "legal" but when used it's configured to something stronger than would have been allowed.
[...] They can also lose government sales.
Meh. Only an issue if the government is your main or only target audience, in which case, do you individually really care if you bought something intended for the military and you find out that they can spy on you? (Note: having a backdoor on military tech is an even dumber idea, but we're not arguing if the government is always doing the smartest things). Apple, Google, Facebook, and even Microsoft are happy to play with the G-men, but none would abandon their 90% of non-government market
With abusive legal tactics such as "Patriot Act" orders, a company refusing to cooperate with orders for backdoors is vulnerable to extremely destructive legal and extra legal abuse from the FCC and from Homeland Security.
National security letters are the devil incarnate and can kill a startup and hamper almost any size company, but the FCC has nothing to do with them. Ajit Pai is a festering pustule poised to explode on the US's behind for a lot of good reasons, but not this one.
Is there any way to do some kind of real work in the process of generating this data[...]?
If by "real work" you mean work useful outside of the blockchain use case, the short answer: "not that we know of."
In order for the blockchain cryptocurrency ecosystem to work in a decentralized, zero-trust environment as intended, there cannot be any direction on what constitutes proof-of-work by a controlling entity (e.g., a person or organization). In order to create value in the currency and disable the ability for anyone to "print new bitcoins for free", new currency is created subsequent only to proof-of-work. (there are great videos that will explain this better than a short /. post).
How do you validate proof-of-work if there is no final arbiter or central bank? What is needed is a reliable, (somewhat) arbitrarily defined, increasing complexity task which poses a computational question with an answer which can be proved correct (or not) with few computational resources. Although we don't (and must not be able to know before hand) the "answer" to the question before hand, the class of computational problems of which we know that fit this paradigm are found in the cryptography or chaotic function realms (e.g., hashing functions).
Our current knowledge suggests that we probably wont find a class of problems that (1) is really hard to answer, (2) is really easy to check, and (3) the answers themselves are useful for solving real-world questions.
The real problem with what you say is there are better ways to heat your home than electricity. And if you do have to use electricity to do it even a modern heat pump is better than straight electric heating.
Actually, you missed the point entirely of the first question and response, since no one was asking "hey, should I start mining Bitcoins in order to heat my house?"
IF you are generating heat through computation, using it to heat your house is a significantly better solution than not. Period. Not using it, but then using a "more efficient" heat source makes things considerably worse.
The heat generated by computing is waste heat. If it is put to good use, it's a good thing. So, if you're going to create a lot of wast heat, you're doing the world a favor when you make good use of it. The problem is that "cryptocurrency" requires computationally intensive but otherwise (outside of the currency market) useless and meaningless work as proof-of-work. If that work were also socially beneficial (e.g., curing death), then using the excess heat to warm your LEED certifies Alaskan cabin would be a great thing all around.
You are successful in getting high scores on slashdot saying essentially the same thing (https://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10552741&cid=54327851) so you're likely getting some part of your point across to some readers. That being said, saying that "we're nowhere close to AI" is misleading at best. "We are nowhere close to AI that resembles or acts like a human" is absolutely true; however, the AI that is learning about you right now is NOT an "expert system". Not even close. Expert systems are completely constrained (unless augmented with neural networks) by human programmers. The "sexy" AI we hear about on a daily basis are very much a black box, often with aggregated of artificial neural networks (ANNs). The fact that ANNs can be largely reduced to a set of discrete numerical outputs does not limit the complexity of their abilities at all. Bit have two discrete outputs but can represent unfathomably complex numbers and instruction sets when put together.
Blind the code reviews. Done.
If it's a matter of lower quality, address that, whether it's because you constantly have junior females (they're leaving or you're just ramping up, for example) or not, you remove any bias in the code review. It's not rocket surgery. If you can't blind them all (doubtful in a company the size of FB) then blind some randomly. If the difference goes away (as does happen, see Google studies and Harvard studies on code reviews and acceptance rates when gender is blinded), the problem solved, at least for code. Move on to next problem.
The chip does NOTHING in the USA except make the whole process take longer.
This.
I don't understand why more customers and retailers are not screaming bloody murder over this. Retailers are losing billions because they either have to staff more checkouts and have longer lines (and irritated customers). Customers should be pissed off since they wait longer, have to do more (insert, wait, pin or sign or do the hokey pokey, remove the card when you get that fart sound).
The United States is now the country of security theater that pisses everyone off (e.g., TSA) does nothing to increase security (read the DoD and Homland Sec's own reports) and everyone seems to accept it. God I love and hate my country....
Elsevier: For US government employees, works created within the scope of their employment are considered to be public domain and Elsevier's publishing agreements do not require a transfer or license of rights for such works. In the UK and certain commonwealth countries, a work created by a government employee is copyrightable but the government may own the copyright (Crown copyright). Click here for information about UK government employees publishing open access
I won't even bother to comment on your subsequent bullshit and fear mongering You just don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, it's fine to require the EPA to make its data available freely: it's good for science, it's good for politics, and it's good for the people. Your delusion that in order for the EPA to do good science, it needs to keep it secret is utterly ludicrous.
Elsevier just says that original work created by the US Government does not need to transfer copyright to Elsevier for that original work in order for it to be published by Elsevier in one of the their journals.
What you cite is completely irrelevant to what people are worried about.
Elsevier does not allow anyone in the license to re-publish work of others which is apparently what this law would require in order for the EPA to consider any science.... therefore .... wait for it... the EPA would still not be able to use 99.99% of published science.
What Internet were you using? USENET, dial-in BBSs, and even MUDs were full of self-righteous condescending jackasses, trolls, and ragers well before AOL. I missed the unicorns and fairy Internet train I guess...
Unfortunately, there are no current or proposed market models that are shown to work (in simulation or in the real world) when a significant portion of the population is no longer among the producers of goods or services.
This is a huge problem. Remember that for the entire existence of any economy, whether a barter economy of 2,000 BCE or today, a majority of the population needed to be among producers of goods and services. Without that, the markets collapsed.
Another foreboding historical lesson is that when unemployment crosses 20%, social unrest increases, murder rates go up drastically, depression and suicide spike, and happiness tanks. PwC, Forbes, Gartner, and many others forecast between 35% to 47% jobs at risk over the next 7-15 years. That's around the corner, so let that sink in. And a recent poll found that the vast majority of workers think automation will take "someone else's" job. If you think it's "not my job" when AI code writers and debuggers are being deployed, white collar workers are in the cross hairs, and all manufacturing positions are at high right, you might want to pull your head out of the sand.
But supposedly we're going to barrel past 20% unemployment. So what has history taught us about unemployment passing 40%? Well, every instance has resulted in violent social unrest with at times up to 25% of the population being murdered. That does not sound too rosy.
OK, so universal basic income it is, right? Not so fast. See above. No economic model works even with UBI. What happens to inflation when 45% of adults don't do anything for their money? See, there is no good solution on the table.
The only thing pretty likely is that if you're worth well over $10M to $15M USD then you and your immediate family (of spouse and two kids) are probably OK for the next quarter century. That's less than one in 10,000 of the US population and less than on in about 10,000,000 of the world population. That's a lot of pissed off destitute people that might start popping up everywhere.
So if it gets bad, we'll have a revolution! *sigh* Good luck revolting against an AI augmented, robot-assisted, militarized police force (or private security) that knows who you've been talking to about what, where you are at any given point in time, and what you have been learning. Remember, the House and Senate just allowed more of your private data to be scooped up and monetized, and the US Constitution used to protect you against the Government invading your privacy, but never protected you from private citizens or companies (or private security). Good times ahead for all if you don't get involved NOW. 2020 is too late and AI is accelerating all timelines.
P.S.,(NOTE: Tinfoil hat time) if you think that you can just leave your burner cell phone at home, remove all the RFID tags in your clothes, credit cards, and grocery store discount cards from your person, and cover your face, alter your gait, change your height (all things used for automated recognition) or otherwise live off the grid, let me burst your bubble. Research from Stanford, MIT, WUSTL and other places show how many ways the people around you with all that stuff still active can make you trackable even if your were only wearing a gorrilla outfit. In short, don't get depressed, get involved. NOW. Trump, the alt-right, the Dems, the Neo-cons, the Commies, and even the Libertarians are not going to fix this.
Although there is research showing an increased prevalence of some general social dysfunction disorders (e.g., NPD and others which are often colloquially referred to as "sociopathy") among certain classes of occupations, I can find no serious research on "psychopathy" (not a real disorder or class of disorders) or any other empathy-deficient disorder with respect to their disproportionate prevalence in executive leadership. It intuitively seems like it might be likely, but anyone can pull that out of their ear. This is supposedly the expressed opinion of one or more panelists, none of which are even quoted directly and only two of which might claim any expertise in the area (but neither of which have published on this particular matter). In other words, sensationalist click bait.
P.S., I have opinions on this too, and they are worth about as much.
If this is the same suit filed against many other academic institutions, then the plaintiffs allege that the automatic captioning (among other things) is inadequate today. I will take that argument as true, though I would dispute it at least in part. Regardless, It is not relevant whether or not it will be one day adequate, as the ADA does not say it's OK to have an inaccessible building because "we can fix it later". The person needs to access the building / bathroom / course material / you name it now. This makes perfect sense until it has serious negative consequences for everyone.
The problem with the ADA is that it does not work as intended in this particular case. Under no circumstances would anyone say, "it costs too much to make all buildings ADA compliant, therefore we should just abandon all buildings and no one will have them." But when you have a tenant with special needs, it is reasonable to require that accommodations be made. Unfortunately, there is no reasonable equivalent to large-scale "giving away stuff for free" and so the ADA puts people in a horrible predicament if taken literally -- the predicament in which UC Berkeley among others finds itself.
The ADA expectation is that the content be accessible at the time of need and that it be made so by the institution. I, unfortunately, worry that this kind of suit will have to tremendously negative effects: (1) it will penalize the vast majority of the public because an important but still tiny minority cannot be granted the same level of access and, perhaps more importantly, (2) will seriously damage the public sentiment toward those less privileged, who quite seriously, do not need this. The latter should be of high concern to all ADA advocates. Basically, it will infuriate millions and further alienate other millions who are disadvantaged. Lose-lose if you ask me.
If the objective is to ensure wider access to those who have special needs, this not only does nothing to further that goal but damages future prospects of achieving that goal for everyone. Most of these institutions (especially the non-profit institutions) want to make the material available to everyone, disabled included, and I refuse to believe there is not a community-wide potential solution that is not universally damaging.
You are right that we have a long history of people crying wolf. As part of a course on the policy and ethical implications of AI, I am teaching the history of Luddite reactions from the printing press to the more recent robotic "revolution". Even recently with ATMs, there was a prediction of fewer branches and tellers which did not happen. So we're good right? Well...
Unfortunately, there is one thing that should stand out as being potentially different this time -- in previous instances of the Chicken Little scenarios, it was those who were worried about being displaced that were sounding the alarm, not those creating the technology. This time, it's the other way around. The vast majority of AI researchers, particularly in the private sector, are bullish on the elimination of most blue-collar and service jobs (even management and hedge fund investors are not safe) in the not too distant future. And if you have doubts, we have ample room to believe that the changes are not 50 years away:
And other things to think about....
A robot arm, trying to follow the same path over and over, will also produce very specific noise that could be detected.
Well, not quite.
Assuming the arm uses aggregated deep learning neural networks, it will (eventually) look like the same "person" clicking over and over again, but there is no guarantee that it will look like a "non-person". If you practice on CAPTCHAs 10,000 times, the variance with which you do things will be much smaller than someone who as only done it 10 times, but it will not make you a robot.
I have been a direct contributor and an executive. I have had a base salary of $53K (as well as no salary only equity) and of $416K. I have had total compensation that hit 7 figures (excluding shares I still own). I never give out my salary history, because it is irrelevant -- always. You tell me your range, I tell you if I can work with it, we dance, and we both decide if we want to keep the music going. Depending one the dance partners, the venue, and the music, the compensation requirements will change drastically.
I do not know any "A" player in my contacts who would do anything but walk away from someone who insists on knowing their previous compensation. If I ask you and you artfully dodge the question, you get brownie points. If you immediately cough up the details or get angry, you get docked a grade. Smart, competent people know it's not your business, know how to handle the question, and know to cut their losses if someone insists.
Although "academic-basis" is one way to generalize and dismiss, there are so many more "poor" families that 1%-ers that doesn't fully explain the issue. I spent quite a bit of time working and researching college admissions (during and after my time in university) and perhaps one of the big problems qualified students from "poor" families have getting admitted to "elite" schools is that even if they are qualified, they don't actually apply (which makes it really, really hard to attend).
The reasons are numerous, but often are attributable to fear and low-expectations (e.g., of getting rejected, figuring out how to pay, distance from family and support systems, etc). Unfortunately, this behavior is ultimately self-defeating in many ways as it sets a lower internal "baseline" for themselves to judge their future success. Some of these were outlined in the infamous 1999 Dale-Kruger research report summarized below...
Self-selection (selecting out by not applying, selecting in by over applying) whether voluntary or involuntary is an extraordinary challenge to overcome. It is far from the only problem, but one which has no good solution. If the application fee is $300, then the child of someone making $275,000 a year can apply to the top 30 schools, whether or not they are academically exceptional, while the child of someone behind on rent cannot. There are many more people with exceptional ability in the bottom 60% by income or net worth than in the top 1%, but there are several fold more who apply from the top 1% than from the bottom 60%. Those with fewer means are more likely to stay close to home, have access to fewer resources during their K-12 experience, have fewer opportunities to visit or interview, the list goes on and on. Even when application fees are waived and interviews are not required to be in person, someone from a less privileged socioeconomic background is less likely to apply to a school that is perceived as more "elite". The institutions that fair better (and none do wonderfully well) spend much more time and resources trying to pull in exceptional candidates from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Similar problems exist with other diversity groups and it is not limited to students - filling staff, faculty, and researchers with diverse exceptional candidates is an ongoing struggle.
A Couple of things to think about:
Historically, social unrest increases with unemployment, with significant social unrest being a given with unemployment rates > 25%. You don't need 95% to have some serious problems.
All observed economies and accepted economic theories REQUIRE consumers and producers. There is no economic model, proposed or in history, that works when there are few or no human producers. No one knows what the economy will look like when 90% of things that are produced (from sourcing of resources to delivery to the home) without direct human contribution.
Every major company with a service component (restaurants, call centers, big box retailers, etc.) is experimenting with replacing more of their workforce with AI and computers. From tellers to cooks, from delivery drivers to therapists.
With every major luddite inspired Chicken Little scenario in the past, which we have successfully brushed off, it was those who feared getting displaced that were crying foul, not those creating innovation (printing press, loom, assembly lines, etc. etc.). This time, it's the AI innovators saying: "Hold on to your asses, cause this is going to hurt".
Unlike with other displacements, AI+robotics has, for the first time, a real potential for exponential growth once unleashed. That means that if it takes a dozen really slow robots two weeks to gather materials, refine them, create all components, and assemble another 12 robots, then if you start with 12, in a year you will have built 805,306,368 robots and 6.5 trillion in 18 months so long as you have access to resources and power. Exponential growth is a bitch, and once it starts, you have no time to go back and re-think "what do we do now". You have to start yesterday.
No one knows how quickly this will come to pass, but we know that the rate at which the rate of change is accelerating is accelerating (wrap your head around that). And with the ability to "merge" deep learning networks ("merge" in quotes, because it's not really merging), which I'm working on, you can almost make an AI learn 1,000 times faster by having 1,000 instances, so you are only limited by resources and costs.
(Almost) none of the clowns in the top 0.01% who control the means and resources, or those in policy creating positions, have a clue or, more likely, care what I'm talking about here. If I and my buddies own land resources, and don't need any of you producers to do anything, the best case scenario is that I act like an enlightened, benevolent despot (that worked out well in history), giving you food, shelter, and entertainment out of the goodness of my heart and just enough to keep you from ruining my day. This should concern you.
SkyNet will not wake up one day and decide to exterminate humanity, but a Kim-Jong Un or a Pol Pot might, and if they have a few trillion killer micro-drone robots, it's going to be a bad day.
So, the sky may not be falling, and we might not all be exterminated any time soon, but sticking our collective fingers in our ears and chanting "lalalalala" is a really, really bad idea.
I love Java, and still use it here and there. But...
Look at every single company whose products are software or services that went from not existing to being worth over $2B in the past 8 years. Look at how many based their product/service -- which are, of course, "larger than a simple script" -- on Java. In spite of 20% of development being in Java, over 90% of successful, novel, and high-impact development over the past 8 years is not based on Java. It might therefore be a good idea to rethink an absolutist stance on the value of a particular language before someone else eats your future lunches.
I am on my third group I've built in 15 years to be internationally recognized as "top 10" producer of science (and scientific systems licensing) with publications in Nature and Science. We release (BSD/GPL) about 90% of what we do and license 10% our work products (and even at only 10%, it's enough), including systems with over 250K lines of custom code. My CTO is one of the original authors of Java Language and he and I concur: anyone who believes that they should use "X" (including Java) for a broad class of problems or projects (e.g., "anything larger than a simple test script"), is far too rigid of a thinker to be on a team that aims to be the best of the best. Rigid thinking never produces breakthroughs.
Java is not dead, nor is it going away anytime soon, but if you believe that every problem is a nail and Java is the best hammer, you're not going to be in the top one tenth of one percent.
... and all the peers are also doctors.
Probably, but not certainly. I'm not a physician, but am asked to review studies like this from time to time even by tier one journals. I've never been asked by JAMA, however, and they don't publish reviewers, so you're probably right. Even so, not all M.D.s who do research like this practice. Skepticism in this case seems reasonable, but far from a reason to toss the whole thing.
If you can find an actual flaw ...
Here is a flaw: The entire study was done with contrived "vignettes" rather than actual cases. The vignettes were written by human doctors, so just because other human doctors were better than apps at reading between the lines and figuring out the intended diagnosis, does not mean that they would be better at diagnosing actual patients.
This is a very valid critique. We've known for decades that question biased has strong effects across different populations, so I would expect that doctors would perform better than random individuals if the questions were about planting flowers but written by doctors. I would, however, be surprised if they seemed like reasonable questions to the average person but that doctors scored 80% and others 40%, as the effect size is usually significant but small. Since this is doctors writing about docrtory stuff, maybe it could account for most of the variance, who knows.
I think there is only one clear conclusion from this study: Doctors really don't like these apps.
No comment except, no, that's not a conclusion.
TL;DR: Misleading news article - Computers have been making things better for a long time if you control of who is inputting the data/answering questions. We're not getting rid of doctors any time soon, however.
We've known that M.D.'s are really bad at diangosing themselves, and that it's not because they have different knowledge when diagnosing themselves vs others, it's because humans are really crappy at self evaluation and generating unbaiased information and spectaculrarly crappy when it comes to themselves -- Apps don't help with that, at least not yet. so this study compared less biased evaluators with experience to extraordinarily biased evaluators with no experience using an App. Was the App enough to counter crappier input and no experience? Looks like a cliffhanger....
Yes, the outcome of this study is not surprising (Patients using Apps solo vs. Doctors) but the snipped and news article are misleading.
"Computers" have been helping to outperform physicians-only interations when it comes to arriving at the correct differential diagnosis, minimizing the number of tests asked for to arrive at the correct differential diagnostic, minimizing adverse events, and maximizing treatment impact for some time (first publication from out of MIT around 1999-2001 if anyone wants to find it for me), but never "in the wild" with patients doing it "solo".
So, having a nurse or a physician assistant walk through a patient a differential diagnosis and treatment program results in significantly better desired outcomes than having an M.D. do it without the help of such a program and has for quite time time; however, both patients and healthcare providers are unwilling to accept how this can be currently implemented, so it just does not work in real life. Note to Doctors, you're still worth something here since an M.D. waking patients through do better than RN and much better than a someone not trained in healthcare at all.
Having patients walk through themselves, however, shows pretty abysmal performance and has for 15 plus years, so "The analysis is believed to provide the first direct comparison between human-made and computer-based diagnoses" is probably the author saying that's what they believe, because folks in Biomedical Informatics know better.
But the benefit is not so clear. There is no evidence that the embedded chips have increased security wholesale "in the wild". The sum of all evidence so far (but not yet published) suggests that it's a wash. If there is an effect size, it's almost certainly going to be small. Moreover, notable experts in the field were skeptical of the claims and it was (and continues to be) largely those with conflict of interest who prance around saying that the chips will save the world (*cough* chip manufacturers, card makers, and dumbass CIO/CISO's who drank the kool aide and now need to cover their asses... *cough* *cough*).
Regardless of whether there is a (small) security benefit or not, the chip has added a significant burden to businesses and consumers, adding an average (again, not fully publish ready) of about 15-20 seconds per transaction. Let's assume that part of this added time is because people have not done the song and dance 100,000 times on average like we've learned to do with swipe (this seems unlikely, since there is a rapid drop in time the first 30 or so times someone uses them and then a plateau, for which we can control), and let's assume it's only 7 seconds. If it were 7 seconds for a lot more security, go for it! But at 7 seconds (go ahead and count them out as you pretend to impatiently wait for the person in front of you to finish) for statistically insignificant changes across a few million transactions -- that's bad all around. The added time means you have to have more cashiers on hand, your customers are less happy, and you lose some amount of business.
If these numbers pan out, I'm guessing that the CC companies will want to do something about it, because they do make more with higher numbers of transactions. Unfortunately, they just rammed something down the throats of a few million merchants, so they can't do that level of change again anytime soon. Which means that I silently want to smash that new card reader into the CC companies CIOs every time I'm asked to stick it in and wait for the *beerp berrp beerp* sound telling me it's finally over.
won't anyone leak the email backups I accidentally deleted, or my boss' cell phone records just once....
P.S., Gucifer 2.0: I'll pay handsomely for Bill Clinton's or Donald Trump's Google/Reddit/xhamster search history. Hillary's, not so much.
If Trump did not follow the law it would have been prosecuted and we would have a verdict. There is no such thing, and that fact bothers the shit out of people like you who find facts an inconvenience.
Rabid supporters of either candidate seem to have skipped the introduction to logic class in high school. You could have made a good point, but instead dove head first into fallacies. I won't break down how your claim directly implies that only people (other than a Clinton, of course) who have been found guilty of a a crime have committed a crime. But most people know that even with serious crimes many if not most do not get prosecuted, let alone punished. Absence of evidence that a crime was committed is not proof that one was not.
For those of you tempted to go "aha!", don't look to me for support. Unless you have evidence you're keeping to yourself, you have no reason to believe that DJ Trump committed any crimes.
From 3 pages of taxes in the 1990s we have gleaned 1 fact, that Trump took a loss. Everything else is speculation.
Now you're talking (though there are other facts, just really boring mundane facts you can't spin into a big cyclone). Yes, speculation and unfounded conjecture make for good click-bait fodder and news stories.
Meanwhile, Hillary is guilty of several laws which the FBI has simply refused to prosecute her for.
Ahhh, why did you go put on that tinfoil hat? "Trump ain't done no crimes cuz he aint been found guilty," "Clinton iz a felon, she just not been found guilty yet." You can't have it both ways. Then you go all batshit crazy calling her "the suspect" and talking about "secret meetings," alleging that the DNS is "colluding with mass media", etc. etc. etc.
Such high hopes crushed again by /.
By the way, just because you did not break a law (and therefore you had a right to do something) does not make you right. You have an absolute constitutional right which I will defend with my life to be a raging asshole to your fellow humans, but you would not be right to do so. That being said, neither Donald nor Hillary can claim to never have been dispicable.
Cthulhu 2016 - Why settle for the lesser of two evils, you wusses?
I think that there is a bit more than can be done than just adding resources, and the wrong place to put the liability is at the ISP or individual owner.
There are very good reasons not to push the liability to ISPs, not the least of which is that they will have all the more "legitimate" seeming reasons to push back on net neutrality, and ultimately we'd be pushing the resource problem to the ISP (to include hardware, software, support, insurance, litigation costs, etc.) which will in turn push them to customers and the like.
Pushing liability to the owner is, absurd. Have you made sure that your water meter is secure? Have to verified that your smart alarm, smart phone, fit bit, smoke detector, HVAC controller board, tankless water heater controller board, electric meter, alarm system, garage door opener, etc., etc., etc., are secure? Do we think it should be our, our parent's, and our children should get CISSP certification and secure those devices?
Attacking the problem will require more than just one solution, but one that is sorely missing is the liability of the producer of the IoT devices. The fact that we have CIOs and, shamefully, CISOs of some of the largest IoT device manufacturers possess a complete lack of understanding of what it takes to reasonably secure devices and communications is, in my not so humble opinion, a travesty. Even if you were trained as an oncologist, you cannot become a Chief Medical Officer of a Med-Tech company and then claim that "infectious diseases are not my speciality", nor can you hide behind board certification when your decisions (or lack thereof) result in harm to the users of your device. Why do we tolerate this with IT?
If you are the CIO/CISO of windmill controllers and say that you cannot be hacked from the Internet because "your devices use cellular networks" (read 4G internet), you should be fired on the spot and your company deserves to be crippled financially for having facilitated the creation of a botnet from your staggering ignorance. If you are a CIO/CISO of building control systems and you think that your smart thermostats do not need to be secured, because, who cares if they get hacked, you should suffer the same consequence. And here, I am talking about two of the biggest players in both fields, one of whom is still sadly my company's strategic partner.
Third, even if an actual human doesn't target you, automated systems might.
"might" should be "will". We are all being data mined right now. From our shopping habits at the local grocery store (frequent buyer cards, cc, RFID in your wallet/purse, WIFI MAC, etc.) to our browsing of "the Internets" (even in incognito - browser fingerprinting, session tagging, behavior analytics for mouse movement, clicking, scrolling). From our driving on the highway (photo metrics) to our walking in the park (location tracking on phones and cell towers). From your blood workup sent to the lab to the fact that you spent more time in the Target/Walmart diet supplement aisle (see grocery store). Even when you "go dark" by turning off your phone, removing the battery, that information is tied to us (and being used to locate "clandestine" meetings (see Bruce Schneier's research).
An automated system might decide to add you to to the no-fly list or similar, for reasons completely incomprehensible to you. As law enforcement automates more and more tasks, mistakes like this will become increasingly common. It's already happened in a few cases that innocent people have ended up on these lists, and that might have been done by humans; imagine how bad faulty software will be.
These are examples of things that might happen to an unlucky few, but not the examples of things that will happen and do happen. So the question becomes do you want an amorphous system with non-parametric machine learning churning over your data to create bubbles that are already being created? From the Ads you see to the news you get, decisions are being made for you. From the interest rates you're offered, to the amount of scrutiny you get when you apply for a job, these things are changing. Spurious correlations? The machine cares not, nor the buyers of the information. If by using deep learning and big data on people my marketing goes from 3% conversions to 3.1% conversions, it's probably worth it, even if it's still says that 8 year old Billy wants menopause pills. So who cares if the ads Billy gets are strange sometimes, but when it means that Jane will pay 0.1% more on a $500K 30 year mortgage, it starts to hurt, but it's OK, since you won't know it. And if you are flagged as a customer not work appeasing when you call your telco, it's OK too, because you won't know it. And when you get a few more "random" searches of your email, work, at the airport, it's OK, because you won't know it's because of this unfettered use of your data you're sprinkling everywhere liberally. And when your insurance refuses to pay for a medical procedure -- not because it would not have been covered, but because they're ML system said you're a sucker who probably won't fight it and if you do won't fight hard -- it's OK too, because you won't know it's because of all that data.
So do I wear a tinfoil hat? Nope. I'm one of the folks to can run your data through a deep learning exercise and increase marketing efficacy by 5% with 24,000% return on computing investment, but I don't. I turned down an offer to do so just 3 months ago for more money than I've made in my entire life (and I've done well). But the fact that I said "no thanks" because it made me feel like I needed to take a shower just for thinking about it does not change the fact that it took that company less than 6 weeks to find someone else who knew what they were doing to jump in and do it.