We have got to start embedding deep into the mind of every software engineer that any information from outside your system can be manipulated to cause maximum damage or disruption. It is your system's responsibility to safely handle malformed and malicious inputs.
You've hit the nail on the head. Dealing with normal situations is easy, but how does AI cater for deliberate disruption? I made a case in an earlier thread that kids could easily fuck the system over by printing off false road works signs or putting cones across the street, just for shits and giggles. I know I did worse when I was a bored teenager
Then there is the sophisticated attack. What if a bug is introduced that causes a massive disaster?
This discussion is far more complex than 'is AI safer than the average driver'.
I actually keep a loose track of this in my head. I ride a motorcycle so face life threatening situations more often than when I drive.
My daily commute is a 35km round trip. Because I like to go fast, I interact with at least 100 other drivers each trip, whether I'm passing them, or they are pulling out in front of me etc. In the average week I might get one interesting event, which means out of roughly a thousand interactions there is one that is the result of sub-optimal driving (ie 1 in 1000). Out of those, less than half are due to stupidity, most are just unlucky (ie come around a blind corner and someone is changing lanes, or two vehicles change lanes simultaneously resulting in an emergency brake event.
So yeah, 99.95% of people are doing ok most of the time. 0.025% make honest mistakes and 0.025% probably could do with more training.
If I'm driving an S class, I expect a little more granularity than that. I need to know that, given the possibility of hitting one or more people in a crowd, the avoidance decision process will go Wealthy > White People > Males > Everyone else.
No, no you have it all wrong. You want it to actively target other wealthy people to eliminate the competition. It should also be able to perform facial recognition and target better looking men, then ugly women. If all the better looking, richer men were run over, and then all the ugly women, that would be a net gain for me. And that's all that counts right?
It's a bit of everything. Alertness and spatial awareness is probably the key, but reaction time also helps for those surprises.
Coming from an FPS gaming background I have excellent reaction and awareness skills (not just me bragging, these things are measurable). So find that having that sort of alertness, ie tracking every moving object, and judging speeds and trajectories of every vehicle, it is quite trivial to avoid impacts. AI will always do well here, but where it is still up in the air is its error rate in detecting what is a car or a human, (or animal or rubbish etc). The worst for AI is what is something I can drive through no problem, such as a paper bag, and what must I avoid, such as a concrete block.
I'm sure the AI will get there eventually, but who are going to be the guinea pigs that sacrifice themselves to the development cause? We've already had one clear case, and even if that is less than "the masses" it's still one more than I've experienced.
It means if they are much safer than human drivers it doesn't really matter who they are prioritizing since everyone will be benefitting still.
This is the myth that keeps getting repeated. AI might be safer that humans overall, but unless it is better than me as an individual then why would I bother? (I'm not presenting this as my argument, but as the standard economic test).
Each of us make choices everyday, is this better for me than the alternative?
We have ad on the TV the moment about road safety. It starts by asking a regular Joe TV actor that currently 300 people die on the roads in our state each year, what do you think an ideal number would be? Regular Joe says "Um I don't now about 70?". This seems good on the surface, 70 beats 300 right? This tries to get the audience to buy into it. Then they wheel out 70 members of his friends and family and say would you be ok if these 70 people were killed? Um no.
They're trying to make the point that we should aim for zero road deaths, but what they have inadvertently exposed is that most people are ok with others being killed, as long as it's not them or someone they know. ie the same reason we care ore when one person gets killed in our neighbourhood over 100,000 people dying in an earthquake in some unknown Asian country.
So right now I feel like I have a great chance at avoiding crashes (not always but I think I have a good handle on how the average driver acts, I ride a motorcycle so have to be 110% alert all the time). With AI, especially like this that each manufacturer has programmed different priorities, I feel like I'm at a disadvantage.
So if AI reduce deaths from 300 to 70, it's still not necessarily good for each person because with current technology, that 70 might mean a higher chance of you being a victim than the current 300.
Again, not my personal argument, I'm merely presenting the rules of economics and why humans make the choices that they do.
Don't worry. It's a general label for a very specific group of people it's much easier then saying:
And herein lies the flaw in the logic. From what I can tell SJW, is not a single group, it is a generalisation of many different groups, all with different ideals and motives, and rather than discuss each of the groups' arguments on their individual merit, lazy people bundle them all under one label and call them all wrong. As I said stupid.
It's the equivalent of saying all back people at good at sport, or all English people have bad teeth etc. Just because it's easier to say that doesn't make it right.
We really need an 'opentwitter' system. Twitter has demonstrated the need and power of this sort of communication,
No we don't. Twitter is a microcosm of stupid and if it went away overnight there would be zero impact to the lives of most normal people. Millions of idiots would have to find another way to see what the Kardashians are up to today, but regular life would function quite fine without it.
So which part makes them "nut jobs" the part where they post things offensive to regressive leftists, or the parts where they post politically compromising things that hurt their feelings and they should be silenced before you have too much to think for yourself?
If you want to think for yourself, then I'd suggest try something other than social media to source your information.
You can track Clinton's real positions through her voting record, previous statements, and how they all shifted as she made a carbon copy of the Sanders campaign in order to grab the Progressive vote, despite her own position being a Neo Conservative. Trump is just unbelievable, unreal, no. Both of them way no..
If you compare Trump on Clinton's positions on Political Compass, Clinton is similar to Thatcher (ie hard right), and Trump is similar to Hitler (right, extreme authoritarian).
So the Hitler comparison are quite valid.
I just hope it sends more people to third party. I know Gary Johnson isn't likely to win, but if he gets close to 10% of the vote it'll change the entire scope of all future elections.
Is he any better? I'm not American but the choices all seem pretty bad. Hillary the classic corrupt politician, Trump the disgraceful misogynist, racist, corrupt 1%er bully, or the loony minorities who aren't even aware of other countries outside their own borders.
If there is evidence of criminality in his tax returns he would be under prosecution.
The question is ethics, not criminality. When you are running for leader of the free world, this is kind of an important personality trait.
He may have a personal, business, or even political (i.e., he'll release his taxes when Hillary produces her missing email) for not releasing them.
Who cares, when you run for office you are expected to be accountable and transparent. Whether you are left right or other, accountability and transparency should be a mandatory requirement.
Do you make your taxes public? If not, then why not?
I'm not running for public office, but I did do a low level government contract once and was required to declare not only my taxes, but my income, outgoings, all the places I've traveled to, and any connection via family and friends to foreigners and/or foreign governments. This is standard security/anti-corruption practice which I did, why would you not expect the same of anyone attempting to run the country?
Not only 3 cameras, but a mic, GPS tracking, and remote control/bricking.
It would be relatively trivial for Apple to install a proximity app to lock the UI, but retain GPS, mic and camera and track the thief.
Bill Clinton taking Chinese Communist money for his campaigns, Carlos Slim spending his millions in this election cycle, or Hillary taking millions from Middle Eastern countries. All of that is okay when you're a Democrat. Foreign money is just another campaign contribution, just like dead voters' votes count just like live ones.
True, so why is Trump hiding?
If he discloses his tax returns, just like every Democrat and Republican before him, then we can hold him to the same standard.
No-one is pretending either side are clean, we just want to compare like against like.
I don't know it for sure, but I heard about it on the internet. I think Trump needs to produce papers proving he's not a KGB agent. (I believe he is their most tremendous agent - there has never been a better KGB agent than Donald Trump.)
I know you're being funny, but I'm old enough to remember the lengths the Soviets went to turn important US citizens to their cause. It would be naive to think that the ex-KGB establishment is Russia isn't engaging similar tactics right now.
I'm not for a moment suggesting Trump is a 'KGB agent', but he has business history is Russia, and it's quite possible some deals have been done somewhere. Who knows for sure, only some impartial examination of financial history would tell for sure.
They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.
Um, I'm pretty sure hacking a computer system you don't own is illegal...
Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered?
Yes, that is how the law works.
In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.
Probably, but just because one person breaks the law doesn't give everyone else permission to do it too.
It's quite likely that the NSA, Trump, and Clinton are all criminals, that doesn't mean Trump has carte blanche to do what he likes. Clinton has been investigated numerous times, why shouldn't Trump be held to the same standard?
I know nothing about this game but will buy it on principle. If a million others do the same it will send a clear message to the RIAA/MPAA types that DRM is pointless, and good content will always beat good DRM at making profits.
Exactly. And the risk that some random individual will be able to summon enough resources to win a lawsuit against a phalanx of corporate lawyers who know all the tricks to delay, obfuscate, and harrass a litigant is very small.
That depends on the likelihood of winning. Most Lawyers, even the large firms, will take on no-win/no-fee cases if they are likely to get a big payout.
While the risk that paying off the employee will encourage hundreds of others to do the same thing is high.
Payouts are not a blanket decision. Each is done on the merits of each case, and if their are hundreds of people with strong cases, then the company will be up for hundreds of payouts, or hundreds of losing lawsuits.
Betting "they will fold if you threaten a lawsuit" is a bet where your ante is high, and you can't count on winning on a bluff.
Only if you have a crap hand to start with, in which case you're a fool if you play the game.
You thought senators and secretaries of state were supposed to work for your benefit?
Almost too cute.
You think they don't? Even cuter.
While you may personally agree with the decisions of the latest elected reps, all you need to do is go to a country where the government actively works against its citizens (eg DPK) and see how it compares.
They should NOT be driving because they should NOT be in this country legally! They cannot destroy lives and property in the US if they are not actually here!
In Thailand the law is that is a tourist is involved in a crash, it is automatically their fault, since if they weren't in the country the crash wouldn't have happened. Seems reasonable at first, until you learn that tourists are now target in order to scam them out of their wealth. So you have to also think of the side effects of such policies.
Slashdot Mirror
We have got to start embedding deep into the mind of every software engineer that any information from outside your system can be manipulated to cause maximum damage or disruption. It is your system's responsibility to safely handle malformed and malicious inputs.
You've hit the nail on the head. Dealing with normal situations is easy, but how does AI cater for deliberate disruption? I made a case in an earlier thread that kids could easily fuck the system over by printing off false road works signs or putting cones across the street, just for shits and giggles. I know I did worse when I was a bored teenager
Then there is the sophisticated attack. What if a bug is introduced that causes a massive disaster?
This discussion is far more complex than 'is AI safer than the average driver'.
I actually keep a loose track of this in my head. I ride a motorcycle so face life threatening situations more often than when I drive.
My daily commute is a 35km round trip. Because I like to go fast, I interact with at least 100 other drivers each trip, whether I'm passing them, or they are pulling out in front of me etc. In the average week I might get one interesting event, which means out of roughly a thousand interactions there is one that is the result of sub-optimal driving (ie 1 in 1000). Out of those, less than half are due to stupidity, most are just unlucky (ie come around a blind corner and someone is changing lanes, or two vehicles change lanes simultaneously resulting in an emergency brake event.
So yeah, 99.95% of people are doing ok most of the time. 0.025% make honest mistakes and 0.025% probably could do with more training.
If I'm driving an S class, I expect a little more granularity than that. I need to know that, given the possibility of hitting one or more people in a crowd, the avoidance decision process will go Wealthy > White People > Males > Everyone else.
No, no you have it all wrong. You want it to actively target other wealthy people to eliminate the competition. It should also be able to perform facial recognition and target better looking men, then ugly women. If all the better looking, richer men were run over, and then all the ugly women, that would be a net gain for me. And that's all that counts right?
It's a bit of everything. Alertness and spatial awareness is probably the key, but reaction time also helps for those surprises.
Coming from an FPS gaming background I have excellent reaction and awareness skills (not just me bragging, these things are measurable). So find that having that sort of alertness, ie tracking every moving object, and judging speeds and trajectories of every vehicle, it is quite trivial to avoid impacts. AI will always do well here, but where it is still up in the air is its error rate in detecting what is a car or a human, (or animal or rubbish etc). The worst for AI is what is something I can drive through no problem, such as a paper bag, and what must I avoid, such as a concrete block.
I'm sure the AI will get there eventually, but who are going to be the guinea pigs that sacrifice themselves to the development cause? We've already had one clear case, and even if that is less than "the masses" it's still one more than I've experienced.
It means if they are much safer than human drivers it doesn't really matter who they are prioritizing since everyone will be benefitting still.
This is the myth that keeps getting repeated. AI might be safer that humans overall, but unless it is better than me as an individual then why would I bother? (I'm not presenting this as my argument, but as the standard economic test).
Each of us make choices everyday, is this better for me than the alternative?
We have ad on the TV the moment about road safety. It starts by asking a regular Joe TV actor that currently 300 people die on the roads in our state each year, what do you think an ideal number would be? Regular Joe says "Um I don't now about 70?". This seems good on the surface, 70 beats 300 right? This tries to get the audience to buy into it. Then they wheel out 70 members of his friends and family and say would you be ok if these 70 people were killed? Um no.
They're trying to make the point that we should aim for zero road deaths, but what they have inadvertently exposed is that most people are ok with others being killed, as long as it's not them or someone they know. ie the same reason we care ore when one person gets killed in our neighbourhood over 100,000 people dying in an earthquake in some unknown Asian country.
So right now I feel like I have a great chance at avoiding crashes (not always but I think I have a good handle on how the average driver acts, I ride a motorcycle so have to be 110% alert all the time). With AI, especially like this that each manufacturer has programmed different priorities, I feel like I'm at a disadvantage. So if AI reduce deaths from 300 to 70, it's still not necessarily good for each person because with current technology, that 70 might mean a higher chance of you being a victim than the current 300.
Again, not my personal argument, I'm merely presenting the rules of economics and why humans make the choices that they do.
You are either a lawyer or somebody who has never been involved in a lawsuit.
This makes no sense.
For the litigant, a lawsuit is a losing game. Period.
Neither does this.
You read stories in the news about people...
Oh right, stories in the news. Who needs reality when we have "the news" as a source of truth...
Don't worry. It's a general label for a very specific group of people it's much easier then saying:
And herein lies the flaw in the logic. From what I can tell SJW, is not a single group, it is a generalisation of many different groups, all with different ideals and motives, and rather than discuss each of the groups' arguments on their individual merit, lazy people bundle them all under one label and call them all wrong. As I said stupid.
It's the equivalent of saying all back people at good at sport, or all English people have bad teeth etc. Just because it's easier to say that doesn't make it right.
So which part of that disputes twitter censoring things that they disagree with? Oh right...
You know not every discussion involves a dispute?
The point was about 3.2m above your head apparently.
Things are not always as they seem...
Whenever I hear the phrase SJW I think here's a stupid person that lacks the ability to form a coherent argument.
I'm sure I'm not the only one...
We really need an 'opentwitter' system. Twitter has demonstrated the need and power of this sort of communication,
No we don't. Twitter is a microcosm of stupid and if it went away overnight there would be zero impact to the lives of most normal people. Millions of idiots would have to find another way to see what the Kardashians are up to today, but regular life would function quite fine without it.
So which part makes them "nut jobs" the part where they post things offensive to regressive leftists, or the parts where they post politically compromising things that hurt their feelings and they should be silenced before you have too much to think for yourself?
If you want to think for yourself, then I'd suggest try something other than social media to source your information.
turns out that alienating half your user base at the behest of a tiny cadre of radical feminists is a lousy business strategy...
I'm pretty sure the 99% of Twitter users have no idea who these people are, nor care.
Agree 100%.
You can track Clinton's real positions through her voting record, previous statements, and how they all shifted as she made a carbon copy of the Sanders campaign in order to grab the Progressive vote, despite her own position being a Neo Conservative. Trump is just unbelievable, unreal, no. Both of them way no. .
If you compare Trump on Clinton's positions on Political Compass, Clinton is similar to Thatcher (ie hard right), and Trump is similar to Hitler (right, extreme authoritarian).
So the Hitler comparison are quite valid.
I just hope it sends more people to third party. I know Gary Johnson isn't likely to win, but if he gets close to 10% of the vote it'll change the entire scope of all future elections.
Is he any better? I'm not American but the choices all seem pretty bad. Hillary the classic corrupt politician, Trump the disgraceful misogynist, racist, corrupt 1%er bully, or the loony minorities who aren't even aware of other countries outside their own borders.
If there is evidence of criminality in his tax returns he would be under prosecution.
The question is ethics, not criminality. When you are running for leader of the free world, this is kind of an important personality trait.
He may have a personal, business, or even political (i.e., he'll release his taxes when Hillary produces her missing email) for not releasing them.
Who cares, when you run for office you are expected to be accountable and transparent. Whether you are left right or other, accountability and transparency should be a mandatory requirement.
Do you make your taxes public? If not, then why not?
I'm not running for public office, but I did do a low level government contract once and was required to declare not only my taxes, but my income, outgoings, all the places I've traveled to, and any connection via family and friends to foreigners and/or foreign governments. This is standard security/anti-corruption practice which I did, why would you not expect the same of anyone attempting to run the country?
Not only 3 cameras, but a mic, GPS tracking, and remote control/bricking.
It would be relatively trivial for Apple to install a proximity app to lock the UI, but retain GPS, mic and camera and track the thief.
Bill Clinton taking Chinese Communist money for his campaigns, Carlos Slim spending his millions in this election cycle, or Hillary taking millions from Middle Eastern countries. All of that is okay when you're a Democrat. Foreign money is just another campaign contribution, just like dead voters' votes count just like live ones.
True, so why is Trump hiding? If he discloses his tax returns, just like every Democrat and Republican before him, then we can hold him to the same standard.
No-one is pretending either side are clean, we just want to compare like against like.
I don't know it for sure, but I heard about it on the internet. I think Trump needs to produce papers proving he's not a KGB agent. (I believe he is their most tremendous agent - there has never been a better KGB agent than Donald Trump.)
I know you're being funny, but I'm old enough to remember the lengths the Soviets went to turn important US citizens to their cause. It would be naive to think that the ex-KGB establishment is Russia isn't engaging similar tactics right now.
I'm not for a moment suggesting Trump is a 'KGB agent', but he has business history is Russia, and it's quite possible some deals have been done somewhere. Who knows for sure, only some impartial examination of financial history would tell for sure.
They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.
Um, I'm pretty sure hacking a computer system you don't own is illegal...
Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered?
Yes, that is how the law works.
In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.
Probably, but just because one person breaks the law doesn't give everyone else permission to do it too.
It's quite likely that the NSA, Trump, and Clinton are all criminals, that doesn't mean Trump has carte blanche to do what he likes. Clinton has been investigated numerous times, why shouldn't Trump be held to the same standard?
I know nothing about this game but will buy it on principle. If a million others do the same it will send a clear message to the RIAA/MPAA types that DRM is pointless, and good content will always beat good DRM at making profits.
That will redirect your @my_domain.com's email to wherever you want it, but your @yahoo.com will not be involved and is still "held hostage" by Yahoo.
If you are using a @yahoo.com address for things you consider important then it's your own fault.
Exactly. And the risk that some random individual will be able to summon enough resources to win a lawsuit against a phalanx of corporate lawyers who know all the tricks to delay, obfuscate, and harrass a litigant is very small.
That depends on the likelihood of winning. Most Lawyers, even the large firms, will take on no-win/no-fee cases if they are likely to get a big payout.
While the risk that paying off the employee will encourage hundreds of others to do the same thing is high.
Payouts are not a blanket decision. Each is done on the merits of each case, and if their are hundreds of people with strong cases, then the company will be up for hundreds of payouts, or hundreds of losing lawsuits.
Betting "they will fold if you threaten a lawsuit" is a bet where your ante is high, and you can't count on winning on a bluff.
Only if you have a crap hand to start with, in which case you're a fool if you play the game.
You thought senators and secretaries of state were supposed to work for your benefit?
Almost too cute.
You think they don't? Even cuter.
While you may personally agree with the decisions of the latest elected reps, all you need to do is go to a country where the government actively works against its citizens (eg DPK) and see how it compares.
They should NOT be driving because they should NOT be in this country legally! They cannot destroy lives and property in the US if they are not actually here!
In Thailand the law is that is a tourist is involved in a crash, it is automatically their fault, since if they weren't in the country the crash wouldn't have happened. Seems reasonable at first, until you learn that tourists are now target in order to scam them out of their wealth. So you have to also think of the side effects of such policies.