They are taking these baby-steps because attempts at larger steps have failed. It is quite possible this attempt will fail too, but if not the results will be groundbreaking and very, very useful.
However the approach to mimic what humans do is probably not a good one, as common sense is not very common among humans.
Aaaaaand, fail. You can only recognize patterns if the number of patterns is small enough to be cataloged. That is not the case here. Of course, you can in theory write a book (so not even an active agent) that has all the responses a specific truly exceptionally intelligent person would give to any question imaginable, but that does not mean this person has an internal dictionary where the answers get looked up. The mechanism is fundamentally different and not understood at all at this time.
You cannot actually do that either. Well, you can, but it is a) one shot (it becomes worthless when discovered) and b) causes extreme problems for the CPU manufacturer when discovered. So, no, that does not work. Please stop fantasizing about things you do not understand.
You cannot actually backdoor something like AES or rather if you do it comes with an extreme risk of being found out and it will only help if you can force a specific key on the user (in which case you do not need that backdoor).
Some understanding of cryptography required to participate in this discussion...
Personally, I do not like VeraCrypt. The designer thinks they know much more than they actually do and force me to use a really long password, despite my short one having more than enough entropy to be secure. That is not competence, that is arrogance and a desire to dominate people. I went back to the last version of TrueCrypt as that is still unbroken. My next one will be Windows virtualized on top of a Linux LUKS partition.
In addition. quite a few higher-IQ people are also pretty dumb because they never found out how to apply that intelligence to reality effectively. (I call that "lack of wisdom".)
Hahahaha, no, it does not. We get asked how to find backdoors in existing code and when we inquire it turns out that there was outsourcing to somebody they do not trust after all. With the corruption spread by states (first and foremost the US), this will get worse.
Why would I wish anything of the sort? I said "spoken like an armchair engineer", because you sound like one. If you're employed as an engineer, well, that's just sad.
Well, then be sad. As a matter of fact, I am the very senior engineer that gets handed and solves all the hard problems we do not have an expert for. I do love armchairs though.
While it is certainly unpleasant to admit, the Chinese are probably only spying these days because everybody does it. They likely do not need to. The US, on the other hand...
Slashdot Mirror
They are taking these baby-steps because attempts at larger steps have failed. It is quite possible this attempt will fail too, but if not the results will be groundbreaking and very, very useful.
However the approach to mimic what humans do is probably not a good one, as common sense is not very common among humans.
Aaaaaand, fail. You can only recognize patterns if the number of patterns is small enough to be cataloged. That is not the case here. Of course, you can in theory write a book (so not even an active agent) that has all the responses a specific truly exceptionally intelligent person would give to any question imaginable, but that does not mean this person has an internal dictionary where the answers get looked up. The mechanism is fundamentally different and not understood at all at this time.
Well, at least this gets admitted by now. Calling it "AI" is still grossly misleading to any non-expert, but I can live with a statement like yours.
But the tech-fanatics want their flying cars...
I also should add that there is no indicator at all that machines will ever get there.
The EVO850 with the master password feature disabled seems to be fine.... or am I missing something?
Well, you get the whole thing as a free add-on, so I would not expect too much anyways.
Does not match my experience.
You cannot actually do that either. Well, you can, but it is a) one shot (it becomes worthless when discovered) and b) causes extreme problems for the CPU manufacturer when discovered. So, no, that does not work. Please stop fantasizing about things you do not understand.
You cannot actually backdoor something like AES or rather if you do it comes with an extreme risk of being found out and it will only help if you can force a specific key on the user (in which case you do not need that backdoor).
Some understanding of cryptography required to participate in this discussion...
Personally, I do not like VeraCrypt. The designer thinks they know much more than they actually do and force me to use a really long password, despite my short one having more than enough entropy to be secure. That is not competence, that is arrogance and a desire to dominate people. I went back to the last version of TrueCrypt as that is still unbroken. My next one will be Windows virtualized on top of a Linux LUKS partition.
In addition. quite a few higher-IQ people are also pretty dumb because they never found out how to apply that intelligence to reality effectively. (I call that "lack of wisdom".)
Hahahaha, no, it does not. We get asked how to find backdoors in existing code and when we inquire it turns out that there was outsourcing to somebody they do not trust after all. With the corruption spread by states (first and foremost the US), this will get worse.
NASA is desperate for relevancy....
My 30 year old pocket calculator can factor numbers up to 70 bit. Color me unimpressed even if this thing works...
You really are obsessed with my feelings. I said it's sad, not I'm sad.
I could not care less. You overvalue your importance...
A closed implementation, no independent review (until now), what can possibly go wrong?
LOL! Excellent! That is sooooo true.
Well, "A" players hire "A" players, but "B" players hire "C" players. Seems to me the bosses are mostly "B" players (or worse) ...
Also "never promote people that deserves it, because they will not be grateful" (Machiavelli, I think).
Sounds complicated. I rather do it straight and not through yet another unnecessary tool. Of course, I do know how to do OO in C...
I do very strictly follow my own permissive indention rules!
No, it does not mean that. Seriously. Maybe when everything in IT is standardized (in 100 years or so), such a process can be created, but not before.
Well, I write Python modules in C. No Idea what that signifies...
I agree. This sounds like an absolute load of nonsense.
Indeed. And for sure there are IT/CS/Coding people that can do that. They are just very rare.
You wish.
Why would I wish anything of the sort? I said "spoken like an armchair engineer", because you sound like one. If you're employed as an engineer, well, that's just sad.
Well, then be sad. As a matter of fact, I am the very senior engineer that gets handed and solves all the hard problems we do not have an expert for. I do love armchairs though.
While it is certainly unpleasant to admit, the Chinese are probably only spying these days because everybody does it. They likely do not need to. The US, on the other hand...