Re: the error is in call it "AI" !!!
You obviously don't have a cat around.
I am telling you, they rule the planet. Don't trust them.
898 posts • joined 11 Jul 2015
'letting an AI rip on the unbalanced data simply trains it to be similarly biased. Hiding a field labelled "skin color" does not compensate for anything when the AI's algorithms charge ahead identifying the same patterns of biased social profiling by the justice system anyway.'
I would go as far to say that bias is the society the 'AI' was created in, and I quote 'AI' because that is another can of worms.
The bias is there, in the many areas of media, government, people in areas and so on. Funny how we are seeking a completely neutral, for a given value of neutral, approach to decision making. A neutral decision making process is easier the simpler the process.
Take a court system.
If you assign a sentence to a particular crime, and that sentence is weighted by previous convictions, age of convicted etc, then that should take place regardless of anything else.
Now if you are trying to automatically bring in a Mercy factor, or mitigating factor - based on upbringing, lack of chances etc, and you have a person who is from a wealthy white background - they will be penalised because now we say 'you had every chance yet still you did X'. This may be true, but in the context of the crime, is this also just?
It will never be a perfect system. Just like the existing wetware isn't a perfect system. Human nature - we have consistantly shown bias toward the powerful. Whether that is down to money and background/status, or power awared in the particular societal construct people happen to fall into. (Soviet Russia etc).
In attempting to leave our gods, decry them either dead or never were, we are trying to create new ones to replace them.
Oh the irony.
"As to the 'm0rtal' concept... all well and good, but that also requires legislative framework that only allows ad networks to server ads based on informed opt-in, and makes absolutely illegal the current indiscriminate tracking of every movement happening on the web. "
Actually it doesn't require that - tracking will happen regardless of what the law states, rogue elements and all that, but the ad giants who *want* to use this will and any that are seen to not use something, assuming it took off, would do so to be seen to treating targets fairly.
"Also the mechanism to pay users back for being advertised to is laudable, but introduces a link between actual person who's account needs to be credited with the 'advertising ID', a 'single failure' point that can be hacked and/or abused."
Yep - this was why the ID was so important which was seperately linked to an account somehow. A single failure point could be mitigated if the ID itself was paid in a similar way to crypto currency - so only the holder of the ID could then create a one time payment reference to another account.
The idea here being that there is something of a way forward. You can say 'all tracking is now illegal' and I hate advertising as much as anyone. BUt it isnt' going away. So why not work with it? Google get their income from advertising. A shit load of income. Their way of showing transparancy is also crap and GDPR is a direct result out of their attitude, as well as all the other players, both legit and rogue.
So this way gives a path and allows targets to gain something from this also. Want to advertise to me? Then pay me to see the ads.
It would be interesting to have a mechanism that tells you just how many advertisers have paid to send you adverts during a typical day online. If I earned, say a quid or two a day whilst on the web - then, why not?
It also means that higher value targets also get a proportion of the more expensive adword amounts etc.
It hits advertisers, and companies like google, where it hurts. Yes they offer a search facility, and made their name with it, but they also show me adverts in return for that. That is fine and their wont. But if they want to target me they can fooking well pay me some of their revenue. I would agree to that, if I could also just say - don't pay me anything, and you can't access my data as a result
This is a concept - I think it is possible. Companies pay money for access to suiutably profiled targets. As well as being able to opt out, potential targets should also get some of that money. I mean, why not? Just because it hasn't happened yet in this field, doesn't mean to say it shouldn't.
I understand advertising is necessary. We get free stuff from advertising - and that should be very clear.
This linking of who/what I am, when it goes beyond a simple demographic, into very detailed information - now we are in a different land. So - my proposal is this:
Create a portal that allows people to sign up to. This portal is the 'approved' portal that has nothing other than an ID. This ID can be linked to an account on a different system for payments.
On this portal, lets call it M0rtal, (because ego), people can put as much detail on there as they wish. And then they can state what level of payment they require for access to said data, if at all (or the data just simply isn't given).
Automated online advertising bodies then, if they want to offer targetted advertising based on the ID, can use it as long as they pay the target a fee that allows the data to be read.
So - advertiser pays Automated advertising body, who also pays the target for seeing the advert.
Complete control is always with the target. Payments also go to target.
This is a rough draft, but it seems a sensible one. Advertising is here to stay. Sensible targetting advertising is fine. This 'we own you' attitude - that is not fine and is a little pyschopathic, if you ask me. This would be one solution that offers a way forward.
M0rtal should be a nfp - but paid for by the ad giants with complete transparancy.
"OK, famous last words and all that, but I have yet to receive a phishing attack that wasn't obvious. The unlikelihood of the content; the impersonal yet over-familiar nature of the greeting; HTML email layout inspired by MySpace; spelling so utterly unconventional it would even warn off an app developer; the total lack of rudimentary grammar... The scammers may as well embed an animated GIF of the words SCAM ALERT flashing away at the top."
There is a belief that a lot of the mistakes are deliberate. The reasoning goes that the people who fall for these scams are less likely to be able to cause any subsequent trouble. You send out a million messages, and a small percentage fall for the old "I'm gonna tell your family on you..." thing and jobs a good'un.
People need to hold politicians to account. We don't currently. And you can see the results. Just blatent soundbites that mean nothing and make great headlines and politicians who can say anything they pretty much want to get into power, or get the vote they want, then after, when the reality hits, they seem to be...well fine and still politicians.
But since hard hitting journalism seems to be* on the wane, (BBC - you are a prime example of this), what hope is there?
*To me, at least.
"Yet he can represent himself quite happily in a civil action in this country to get his kit back with it's potentially incriminating data ..."
Are you saying that someone who suffers from depression can't represent themselves? Potentially incriminating data - so if there is incriminating data they just what? Haven't found it yet?
Personally I couldn't give a shit if he did it or not. However, the rights of man/woman should be afforded to innocent and guilty alike. Or should be. The point of the law is to ensure that evidence is used to secure a conviction. So if they haven't yet brought a case how long should he sit around in limbo?
"Somehow I feel the truth is out there, we just haven't seen it yet."
Maybe not. But are you looking for a 'truth' that fits the narrative as you see it?
Crime + proven evidence + trial of peers = conviction and guilty OR freed.
You don't think 'Oh we think he is guilty alright - now lets see how we get him'.
Uness you are a DA in some of the states, that is, from what I can gather.
"How did we get from self-driving cars to slagging off cyclists?"
This is a very common rhetoric in our British press comments section. Yes there are fucktards on bicycles. But somehow this then legitimises a possibly small subset, but very vocal amount of drivers to rant and threaten very real violence against all cyclists and state this is the reason why they can behave as they will. And thus the cycle continues.. :/
We are all equally allowed to use the road regardless of how quick our particular mode of transport will get us there. Therefore it is everyone's responsibility to ensure that other road users get to their destination safely.
Think about it.
"One of the more dangerous ideas - hopefully slowly dying as the old gits die off - is the notion that when systems go titsup there's a magical paper alternative just waiting to take over."
Air traffic Control have paper systems in place. Not ideal, but certainly doable and keeps things running to prevent firey death.
it is entirely possible to handle scheduling as a manual task should core systems go offline. It is called planning. But it does seem that is also dying off as the cocksure tits like you seem to take over thinking that modern tech is an unstoppable force. Until the odd flood/JCB/hurricane/snow/earthquake/human condition related issue puts pay to that.
Let just hope you don't work in medical related technology.
"One of the most common risks I see...processing blood tests"
Oh shit, Nevermind then.
systemd is a philosophical wrong choice.
That is, I think, why it polarises people so much. Yep it has massive advantages. But convenience brings complexity, and opaque complexity at that.
If you look at how long posix compliant code has been around in major use you can see that there is a lot there that was just right.
Can you imagine where systemd will be in 10 years time? I shudder to think. Probably Oracle will somehow do a deal and buy the rights to it somehow.
But I won't say 'I told you so!''
I'll bloody well use frikkin lasers and write it on the moon.
...anyone else have a MASSIVE issue going to Mojave on a Macbook Pro 2012?
It ran fine before. Mojave has just KILLED the thing making it pretty shite for anything other than a few apps at a time. Fairly pissed off because this is the last decent machine Apple made, imho.
I am having a hard time just dumping the problem on the older generation. I get that lonliness is a big problem and that in a lot of cases seeing the GP is a way of actually seeing someone that, at least, is their job to care about you.
"A simple £20 apointment charge would solve this. It would also reduce demand for GPs by 50%, resulting in mass layoffs, which is why the BMA is so keen on 'free a tthe point of use' healthcare i.e. make work."
Is so cynical that I want to know if this is really the case, or an opinion, probably shared I guess, of a disgruntled GP who is under a heavy workload.
"What would work even better, is if we stopped the elderly using the GPs as some sort of social club. I've lost count of the number of times some old giffer has been making their next appointment on the way out form their last, while announcing to their cronies in the waiting area that they'll see them next week. A small charge for GP appointments could reduce the frequency of this sort of thing."
I was, literally, shocked when I read that.
You seriously think this is the main problem affecting GPs?
I am trying to work out something. If you are laughing from your enlightened state, then surely an enlightened mind would want to enlighten others? Otherwise it is just ego.
So what we have here is an egotist laughing at the apparent lack of knowledge of others. What a wonderful place you are in! We should all aspire to be like you. It warms my heart to think that there is true greatness in this world.
You should start a vlog. You would be popular on YT and would make a killing with all the ad revenue.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019