This is very much an important point. In game theory terms, behaving ethically might not be the Nash equilibrium, but it's very much an evolutionary stable strategy. Since it's an ESS that provides greater utility than the Homo Economicus model, people are honest and ethical, because the Homo Economicuses either get detected and ostracized (in small numbers) or outcompeted (in separate populations).
So "unlimited data" customers who use more than a 200GB cap are forced into a limited plan? That's a rather odd definition of "unlimited" from Verizon.
On the other hand, there's the famous "I will eat as much plutonium as you eat caffeine" offer. Since caffeine doesn't have a mcg/kg LD50 and presumably Bernard Cohen didn't have a death wish, "otherwise getting into your system" isn't enough for plutonium to kill you. Not in mcg doses.
I was going to say: I use NoScript and Cookie Monster, you insensitive clod! To quote Ranum:
The opposite of "Default Permit" is "Default Deny" and it is a really good idea. It takes dedication, thought, and understanding to implement a "Default Deny" policy, which is why it is so seldom done. It's not that much harder to do than "Default Permit" but you'll sleep much better at night.
If you use a third-party library that has a bug in it, you'll be exposed to the same bugs that everybody else using that library are. On the other hand, if you go at it alone, your implementation will have bugs of its own. And if the library is well-maintained, it'll have fewer bugs than the thing you make from scratch.
Implementing the common functionality from scratch can easily become another kind of "not exercising due diligence", particularly when dealing with complex code. Or to put it another way: code reuse may endanger secure software development, but not reusing code may also endanger secure software development.
Helpful chart. The problem isn't primarily that US life expectancy is low (though it is somewhat lower than Europe's), but that there's so little bang for the buck.
"Fake news" is a social problem. And social problems, generally speaking, don't have technological solutions.
To some extent, yes. But every system that includes people has a dynamic, and the dynamic depends both on the people and the rules of the system. For instance, the way social media suggests friends' likes to you makes it easier to disappear into an opinion bubble, shielded from other points of view, because presumably your friends have similar opinions. If the suggestion algorithm instead was tweaked to suggest things more broadly, then it would at least slow the positive feedback loop.
However, this will degrade the users' short term experience and in a way constitutes an externality. So there's no wonder why social media did go for the most instantly gratifying solution; but in doing so, they made the problem worse.
When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
No news is perfectly accurate, but some moreso than others.
How about Politiken? Granted, you could say it's not unbiased...
That said, I suspect there's a positive externality to serious media. High quality media improves the general political discourse, and also makes it easier to see what news is obviously fake. However, the usual rules about externality apply: if there's a lot of competition for the non-external parts of it, you get too little of things that have positive externalities, and too much of things that have negative externalities.
The short of it being, sensationalist news sell better and then you get a race to the bottom. Combine that with preexisting polarization and you're likely to get a serious mess. Social media just heightened the competitive pressure.
An AI can solve imperfect information games, it just is a lot harder. See, for instance this solution of heads-up limit Texas hold-em. Since the game has imperfect information and aspects of randomness, it's impossible to win every single time, but in the long run, the AI plays as well as or better than any other player.
Just how much harder it gets shouldn't be overlooked. Even imperfect information chess (Kriegspiel) would be pretty much impossible. Now imagine how much greater a game state StarCraft 2 has in comparison to chess... and I'm not holding my breath.
Not that any government would allow an unregulated space station to begin with - or at least not any that could execute a "the moon is a harsh mistress" maneuver before getting shot down by ASAT analogs. Kind of the same reason no government permits corporations to own nuclear weapons.
No it's not. It could be improperly secured, have exploitable bugs, or be deliberately left open.
How do you tell the outside of the system from just another part of the system, from the inside? Suppose you use Reality Hacking Powers and discover a way of traveling faster than light by unorthodox ways, or turning any material into gold, or transporting into something that might be hyperspace or might be the outside reality.
How do you know whether those hacks were "intended" (i.e. not really hacks, just using features of the system that were there all along) or if you've broken out of the simulation? More importantly, how do you know whether the "hyperspace" you've discovered is a feature of the universe or is the world outside of the simulation?
This is the problem about not being well-grounded enough. Those who know nothing about religion, yet have the need that religion fills, are doomed to reinvent it. Poorly.
That only holds (at best) until the system gains enough power/profit to rewrite the rules in its own favor. If the corporate AI can engineer the corporation into becoming a monopoly, game's over. If it can disseminate nanobots that hardwire the population to only buy from that corporation, game's also over. I'm sure you can think of a bunch of other ways for a godlike intelligence to rig the game, and the first AI to cross the game-altering finish line takes it all.
Slashdot Mirror
If we're headed towards a Neuromancer future, it only makes sense to see the beginnings of the Turing Police.
This is very much an important point. In game theory terms, behaving ethically might not be the Nash equilibrium, but it's very much an evolutionary stable strategy. Since it's an ESS that provides greater utility than the Homo Economicus model, people are honest and ethical, because the Homo Economicuses either get detected and ostracized (in small numbers) or outcompeted (in separate populations).
So "unlimited data" customers who use more than a 200GB cap are forced into a limited plan? That's a rather odd definition of "unlimited" from Verizon.
On the other hand, there's the famous "I will eat as much plutonium as you eat caffeine" offer. Since caffeine doesn't have a mcg/kg LD50 and presumably Bernard Cohen didn't have a death wish, "otherwise getting into your system" isn't enough for plutonium to kill you. Not in mcg doses.
If you use a third-party library that has a bug in it, you'll be exposed to the same bugs that everybody else using that library are. On the other hand, if you go at it alone, your implementation will have bugs of its own. And if the library is well-maintained, it'll have fewer bugs than the thing you make from scratch.
Implementing the common functionality from scratch can easily become another kind of "not exercising due diligence", particularly when dealing with complex code. Or to put it another way: code reuse may endanger secure software development, but not reusing code may also endanger secure software development.
Helpful chart. The problem isn't primarily that US life expectancy is low (though it is somewhat lower than Europe's), but that there's so little bang for the buck.
We used to sell one watch every week. This week we sold two! NEW RECORD!
.. well, it is!
Pluggable transports to the rescue.
How about opioids? It may be more accurate to say that opioids produce liking while dopamine and serotonin produce wanting.
Why do they bother with such BS answers? Everybody can see through it - it's not for "creating the best experience" for the users.
To some extent, yes. But every system that includes people has a dynamic, and the dynamic depends both on the people and the rules of the system. For instance, the way social media suggests friends' likes to you makes it easier to disappear into an opinion bubble, shielded from other points of view, because presumably your friends have similar opinions. If the suggestion algorithm instead was tweaked to suggest things more broadly, then it would at least slow the positive feedback loop.
However, this will degrade the users' short term experience and in a way constitutes an externality. So there's no wonder why social media did go for the most instantly gratifying solution; but in doing so, they made the problem worse.
No news is perfectly accurate, but some moreso than others.
How about Politiken? Granted, you could say it's not unbiased...
That said, I suspect there's a positive externality to serious media. High quality media improves the general political discourse, and also makes it easier to see what news is obviously fake. However, the usual rules about externality apply: if there's a lot of competition for the non-external parts of it, you get too little of things that have positive externalities, and too much of things that have negative externalities.
The short of it being, sensationalist news sell better and then you get a race to the bottom. Combine that with preexisting polarization and you're likely to get a serious mess. Social media just heightened the competitive pressure.
IoT will help dementia care here, too. No need to remember your password when all the things have the same default!
Everybody knows that computer algorithms have a liberal bias!
An AI can solve imperfect information games, it just is a lot harder. See, for instance this solution of heads-up limit Texas hold-em. Since the game has imperfect information and aspects of randomness, it's impossible to win every single time, but in the long run, the AI plays as well as or better than any other player.
Just how much harder it gets shouldn't be overlooked. Even imperfect information chess (Kriegspiel) would be pretty much impossible. Now imagine how much greater a game state StarCraft 2 has in comparison to chess... and I'm not holding my breath.
And decisionmaking be done by means of an Ethereum DAO, natch.
Not that any government would allow an unregulated space station to begin with - or at least not any that could execute a "the moon is a harsh mistress" maneuver before getting shot down by ASAT analogs. Kind of the same reason no government permits corporations to own nuclear weapons.
GTA's Facebook expy is called "LifeInvader".
How do you tell the outside of the system from just another part of the system, from the inside? Suppose you use Reality Hacking Powers and discover a way of traveling faster than light by unorthodox ways, or turning any material into gold, or transporting into something that might be hyperspace or might be the outside reality.
How do you know whether those hacks were "intended" (i.e. not really hacks, just using features of the system that were there all along) or if you've broken out of the simulation? More importantly, how do you know whether the "hyperspace" you've discovered is a feature of the universe or is the world outside of the simulation?
This is the problem about not being well-grounded enough. Those who know nothing about religion, yet have the need that religion fills, are doomed to reinvent it. Poorly.
Moriarty, is that you?
That only holds (at best) until the system gains enough power/profit to rewrite the rules in its own favor. If the corporate AI can engineer the corporation into becoming a monopoly, game's over. If it can disseminate nanobots that hardwire the population to only buy from that corporation, game's also over. I'm sure you can think of a bunch of other ways for a godlike intelligence to rig the game, and the first AI to cross the game-altering finish line takes it all.
"I say to you that third party ink is to the American corporation and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
"You wouldn't steal a car
You wouldn't steal a television
You wouldn't steal a printer
You wouldn't steal ink
Using unlicensed third party supplies is stealing.
Stealing is against the law.
PREVENTING PROFIT. IT'S A CRIME."