There is also the problem of newbies that want to get rich quick and have no clue how things work. These may sell ODs simply because they are clueless.
In any business based on mental work, you need to fully trust your employees. After all, you cannot search and erase their minds when they go home from work. Also, DLP is a mix of wishful thinking and an empty threat. Example: One of our customers has a "fully locked down laptop". You can work remotely with this thing though and you can connect an external monitor, mouse and keyboard. I guess they have never heard of frame-grabbers, HD cameras, old-fashioned pen&paper and MCUs simulating mice and keyboards.
So, how to make this secure? Easy: Treat your people well, address grievances, give perks, make them want to stay. Also detect if somebody is not really there anymore and offer them options. If somebody leaves, be generous and they will remember that. Most people want to be loyal and understand that this is a two-way street. Of course, if you treat your employees as disposable, low-value scum that you try to squeeze maximum profit out of, you will find all your secrets are soon in wider circulation.
Inapplicable quote is inapplicable. Obviously I was talking about the current tech, i.e. silicon and electricity. Nothing else is currently on the horizon (no, Quantum Computing is not going to work and even if it works, it is basically useless for most tasks), and hence we are stuck with this for the time being.
The "cruel and unusual" thing is not to reserve such punishments to the extra-vile. It is what such punishment says about those dishing it out and what it does to them.
ICOs are lucky to be low-risk enough to be categorized as "speculative." Be careful using words like "high risk," that is an actual risk category and you might end up with the SEC sniffing around.;)
Fascinating. It is rare to run into a truly evil person these days. You qualify. I hope you at least have fun being evil, because if there is any sort of performance review after this life, you are soooo screwed....
You mistake the pattern of what is happening entirely. It is just yet another field where some of the things humans can do can be done by machines as well. In a sense, this started when somebody invented the first tool. There is absolutely no reason to believe this will eventually cover everything humans can do.
What 3rd world backwater....oh....it is the US....I see. In the modern world, you get somewhere between 100MBit and 1GBit symmetrical at a reasonable price these days, no caps.
You seem to have slept though the classes where they explained "separation of powers". Trump cannot send anybody to prison and for good reasons. Or are you advocating for making the US a fascist nation were separation of powers gets abolished?
Stupidity, vast overestimation of your own skills ans insight and greed are not an US problem only. But since the US seems to be fracturing, with less and less cohesion of society, it may be especially bad there at the moment.
You are right that this is probably one of the central problems of the human race though. If you lump religion and xenophobia in with stupidity (I do), it certainly is the central problem.
But they are few and far in between and even those are decidedly high-risk. The basic problem is that in a business-context, the blockchain does not solve a new problem, but a solved one. It does it with a bit different characteristics, but so far it seems not really that much better. Take, for example, a bank-to-bank money transfer. This is today either done via an intermediate exchange or based on a direct agreement between the two banks. The exchange charges something (not a lot, a transfer of unlimited amount is something like less than 0.01 cent in Europe if you have volume), and some banks want to get rid of the exchange, but really the most of the work the exchange does is to offer a technical interface to the clients so they do not have to arrange for one with each other bank they do business with. That is not enough to justify going to a blockchain solution. But what about being able to prove the transfer later? Banks already need to have revision-proof storage for that. Hence both source and target bank can already prove the transfer happened and cannot claim it did not. The blockchain adds absolutely nothing here.
As it turns out, that pretty much eliminates the "currency" use, except for the case were you want anonymity. But most blockchain-tech does not actually give you that in actual reality. Monero, as a specialty niche solution, does and that is why it may have an actual valid use-case, but only if it eventually gets its volatility under control. As the cryptocurrency-craze very much banks on people that try to get rich, that means speculation and volatility, again making that "currency" actually useless as a currency. What is left? Supply-chain management? Revision-proof storage still has an edge there. Anything else? Not really.
So this is it basically, except for a few special scenarios, but only ones were volatility and speculation is a severe problem. Hence in general, there is nothing but speculation in here and that invites fraud. The typical ICO is basically a pyramid-scheme and these are illegal for a reason. The disclosure requirements are there for the same reason. And violating them is at the very least preparation for fraud.
Is does not understand semantics. It can compare for equality (or close match) and aggregate it though, to a degree. You can, for example, aggregate occurrences and context keywords for "fruit" without any understanding what a fruit is and what it is good for. Watson is about on that level.
Using language customarily used in a certain application domain (here: religion) gives some legitimacy to that domain. But you did already know that, since you are just trolling.
I do agree on that. Were they are not native, wiping them out is likely a manageable risk. But the article is about eliminating them globally, and that is a whole different thing.
Probably using the MS office "summarize document" function. Come to think of it, you can (or at least could) set the target size to more than 100% on that. Anybody ever tried what happens if you do that?
Basically, Watson can help in data-mining in data encoded in natural language. It does not do it very well though and a human expert checking the results is critical. All Watson can really give you is hints. Incidentally, to expert audiences, the IBM folks are not really claiming more than that. I have heard members of the Watson team speak to expert audiences several times now. But those claims are very far from what the general public can understand and and what Watson can do is not easily and directly applicable to problems.
As to what AI is today, it is not even simulated general intelligence. It is basically some pattern matching and some statistics and some simple automated deduction. There are of course the clueless that think things like recognizing a street-sign needs intelligence, but all we are finding is that doing is badly and in a way that is easily fooled, does not actually require intelligence. Or that think a piece of software playing Chess or Go must obviously be intelligent. That is a fallacy. Just because you see some black box perform a specialized task that can also be performed using general intelligence (i.e. humans) does not mean that box is intelligent in any way. What we are actually finding is that quite a few tasks or parts of tasks humans are used for today do not actually require intelligence, but that dumb automation can do it. So yes, absolutely no insight, no understanding, no knowledge, no most certainly no independent thinking (although most humans are basically unable to do that one too). And yes, we have absolutely no clue how humans do it. Some reputed Neuroscientist (they are not all hacks) recently said "the closer we look, the more mysterious it becomes" (cannot find the source of that anymore, sorry).
Sure, some parts of what humans do (motor functions, e.g.) are basically also just dumb automation. But when you look at true feats of general intelligence, humans are leaving machines completely in the dust. For example, automated theorem proving can theoretically find all theorems of a mathematical theory, given some upper proof and theorem size boundaries and given enough (but finite) computing power and memory. However in actual reality, mathematicians find things that the machine would not find if the whole universe gets converted into a computer for its use. Still, the algorithm has the same potential as a mathematician in theory. But that does not make that algorithm intelligent, because what is extremely obvious from the performance is that the mathematician and the algorithm are using two completely and fundamentally different approaches and the machine can basically fake it for small problems (what you call "simulated").
Now, these proving algorithms are still extremely useful. Because if a competent mathematician takes it by the hand and _guides_ it through a proof the machine could never find by itself, it can still verify mechanically that the proof is correct. That tells us that finding mathematical proofs of significant size likely requires general intelligence, but verifying proofs does not and is something dumb automation can do.
Slashdot Mirror
There is also the problem of newbies that want to get rich quick and have no clue how things work. These may sell ODs simply because they are clueless.
In any business based on mental work, you need to fully trust your employees. After all, you cannot search and erase their minds when they go home from work. Also, DLP is a mix of wishful thinking and an empty threat. Example: One of our customers has a "fully locked down laptop". You can work remotely with this thing though and you can connect an external monitor, mouse and keyboard. I guess they have never heard of frame-grabbers, HD cameras, old-fashioned pen&paper and MCUs simulating mice and keyboards.
So, how to make this secure? Easy: Treat your people well, address grievances, give perks, make them want to stay. Also detect if somebody is not really there anymore and offer them options. If somebody leaves, be generous and they will remember that. Most people want to be loyal and understand that this is a two-way street. Of course, if you treat your employees as disposable, low-value scum that you try to squeeze maximum profit out of, you will find all your secrets are soon in wider circulation.
What makes you think the claimed reasons are the true reasons?
Inapplicable quote is inapplicable. Obviously I was talking about the current tech, i.e. silicon and electricity. Nothing else is currently on the horizon (no, Quantum Computing is not going to work and even if it works, it is basically useless for most tasks), and hence we are stuck with this for the time being.
Parallelizable loads are a small faction of all computing loads.
Computers will not get much faster. You can get more cores and less power usage, but that is essentially it.
That move has happened a long time ago.
This is about the laws of marketing, not physics.
The "cruel and unusual" thing is not to reserve such punishments to the extra-vile. It is what such punishment says about those dishing it out and what it does to them.
Indeed.
ICOs are lucky to be low-risk enough to be categorized as "speculative." Be careful using words like "high risk," that is an actual risk category and you might end up with the SEC sniffing around. ;)
The SEC does not concern me. No, not even a bit.
Ah well, somehow all the "old" powers are sleeping though the current tech revolution.
Yes, I know. I have friends in Germany. Still all "Neuland" with regards to the Internet.
Fascinating. It is rare to run into a truly evil person these days. You qualify. I hope you at least have fun being evil, because if there is any sort of performance review after this life, you are soooo screwed....
You mistake the pattern of what is happening entirely. It is just yet another field where some of the things humans can do can be done by machines as well. In a sense, this started when somebody invented the first tool. There is absolutely no reason to believe this will eventually cover everything humans can do.
What 3rd world backwater....oh....it is the US....I see. In the modern world, you get somewhere between 100MBit and 1GBit symmetrical at a reasonable price these days, no caps.
You seem to have slept though the classes where they explained "separation of powers". Trump cannot send anybody to prison and for good reasons. Or are you advocating for making the US a fascist nation were separation of powers gets abolished?
Stupidity, vast overestimation of your own skills ans insight and greed are not an US problem only. But since the US seems to be fracturing, with less and less cohesion of society, it may be especially bad there at the moment.
You are right that this is probably one of the central problems of the human race though. If you lump religion and xenophobia in with stupidity (I do), it certainly is the central problem.
But they are few and far in between and even those are decidedly high-risk. The basic problem is that in a business-context, the blockchain does not solve a new problem, but a solved one. It does it with a bit different characteristics, but so far it seems not really that much better. Take, for example, a bank-to-bank money transfer. This is today either done via an intermediate exchange or based on a direct agreement between the two banks. The exchange charges something (not a lot, a transfer of unlimited amount is something like less than 0.01 cent in Europe if you have volume), and some banks want to get rid of the exchange, but really the most of the work the exchange does is to offer a technical interface to the clients so they do not have to arrange for one with each other bank they do business with. That is not enough to justify going to a blockchain solution. But what about being able to prove the transfer later? Banks already need to have revision-proof storage for that. Hence both source and target bank can already prove the transfer happened and cannot claim it did not. The blockchain adds absolutely nothing here.
As it turns out, that pretty much eliminates the "currency" use, except for the case were you want anonymity. But most blockchain-tech does not actually give you that in actual reality. Monero, as a specialty niche solution, does and that is why it may have an actual valid use-case, but only if it eventually gets its volatility under control. As the cryptocurrency-craze very much banks on people that try to get rich, that means speculation and volatility, again making that "currency" actually useless as a currency. What is left? Supply-chain management? Revision-proof storage still has an edge there. Anything else? Not really.
So this is it basically, except for a few special scenarios, but only ones were volatility and speculation is a severe problem. Hence in general, there is nothing but speculation in here and that invites fraud. The typical ICO is basically a pyramid-scheme and these are illegal for a reason. The disclosure requirements are there for the same reason. And violating them is at the very least preparation for fraud.
Is does not understand semantics. It can compare for equality (or close match) and aggregate it though, to a degree. You can, for example, aggregate occurrences and context keywords for "fruit" without any understanding what a fruit is and what it is good for. Watson is about on that level.
Hehehehehe. But you definitely learned something useful there!
Using language customarily used in a certain application domain (here: religion) gives some legitimacy to that domain. But you did already know that, since you are just trolling.
I do agree on that. Were they are not native, wiping them out is likely a manageable risk. But the article is about eliminating them globally, and that is a whole different thing.
Probably using the MS office "summarize document" function. Come to think of it, you can (or at least could) set the target size to more than 100% on that. Anybody ever tried what happens if you do that?
Basically, Watson can help in data-mining in data encoded in natural language. It does not do it very well though and a human expert checking the results is critical. All Watson can really give you is hints. Incidentally, to expert audiences, the IBM folks are not really claiming more than that. I have heard members of the Watson team speak to expert audiences several times now. But those claims are very far from what the general public can understand and and what Watson can do is not easily and directly applicable to problems.
As to what AI is today, it is not even simulated general intelligence. It is basically some pattern matching and some statistics and some simple automated deduction. There are of course the clueless that think things like recognizing a street-sign needs intelligence, but all we are finding is that doing is badly and in a way that is easily fooled, does not actually require intelligence. Or that think a piece of software playing Chess or Go must obviously be intelligent. That is a fallacy. Just because you see some black box perform a specialized task that can also be performed using general intelligence (i.e. humans) does not mean that box is intelligent in any way. What we are actually finding is that quite a few tasks or parts of tasks humans are used for today do not actually require intelligence, but that dumb automation can do it. So yes, absolutely no insight, no understanding, no knowledge, no most certainly no independent thinking (although most humans are basically unable to do that one too). And yes, we have absolutely no clue how humans do it. Some reputed Neuroscientist (they are not all hacks) recently said "the closer we look, the more mysterious it becomes" (cannot find the source of that anymore, sorry).
Sure, some parts of what humans do (motor functions, e.g.) are basically also just dumb automation. But when you look at true feats of general intelligence, humans are leaving machines completely in the dust. For example, automated theorem proving can theoretically find all theorems of a mathematical theory, given some upper proof and theorem size boundaries and given enough (but finite) computing power and memory. However in actual reality, mathematicians find things that the machine would not find if the whole universe gets converted into a computer for its use. Still, the algorithm has the same potential as a mathematician in theory. But that does not make that algorithm intelligent, because what is extremely obvious from the performance is that the mathematician and the algorithm are using two completely and fundamentally different approaches and the machine can basically fake it for small problems (what you call "simulated").
Now, these proving algorithms are still extremely useful. Because if a competent mathematician takes it by the hand and _guides_ it through a proof the machine could never find by itself, it can still verify mechanically that the proof is correct. That tells us that finding mathematical proofs of significant size likely requires general intelligence, but verifying proofs does not and is something dumb automation can do.