Edginess = bias?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44040008

You can tell the people who fed Norman wanted to make him seem ridiculous (deny/disqualify) but it reads like depressive realism, he isn’t psychopathic, he’s depressed.

And as the name suggests, it’s more realistic than the social desirability biased responses of regular AI.

I trust more the AI that isn’t hiding the negative responses.

That suppression is deception.

Stealing intellectual property

Security issues, et tu?

That is an act of war. That is an invasion. Companies too. They’re the machine in war machine.

If you think that’s nothing, consider these things often have military applications.┬áIt doesn’t have to be obvious. Intellectual property is still property and the theft can net a lot of money. It means the R&D costs nothing (to the thief) so the profits are even higher. IP can be worth more than a jewelry heist or bank robbery. Or ten.

https://www.rt.com/news/436849-hackers-stealing-university-data-iran/

Imagine if the West had kept computers and other white technology to ourselves.

Ah, but “diversity is our strength”, isn’t it?

All this multicultural sharing has been so good for us!

We can trust our historic, low IQ bitter enemies because it’s the current year!

War is outlawed!

They have foreign students passing them system details, only way these hacks work.

Sim People and speech

The AI takes familiar features (from celebrities) and morphs them. I can place a few of the celebrity features and the occasional historical one, they must’ve used internet photos.
Top left looks like a young Winston Churchill. I’d know that face anywhere.

It’s like that morph tool that’s everywhere but in higher resolution.

AI actors are already old hat. Look at the AI on Beowulf. That had me sitting back in my seat in shock.

The Governments already have your speech from routing your cell phone conversations through satellite feed. These must be able to produce “naturalistic speech” from the sheer volume of input. Nobody knew why they were recording but I figured it must be something like that. Idealistically, they could use it to trace a terrorist wherever they placed a call in the world because the AI would flag it up but the fact they’re trying to manufacture speech, and not just track it, is really creepy.

The first software on cameras made the actors look younger, and it dates back to lenses before that.

Youtube is also owned by Google.

Why do you think I’m not on Youtube?

Digital Communism

http://uk.pcmag.com/amazon-web-services/87703/feature/blockchain-the-invisible-technology-thats-changing-the-world
I jest but only a little.
The system could be compromised. It’s difficult, but not impossible.
It makes me laugh when they claim anything’s foolproof. I think of the propeller guy in Titanic.

nb Government and corporation are now used in the same sentence.
At least in a monarchy, you know exactly what the bastard at the top looks like.
Playing jigsaw with a different kinda bit is open to many points of failure, the omission of a single point only puts off the amateurs. Who owns the most pieces, it’s bloody Monopoly.

Ah, the ambiguity of ‘human error’.

comment

“The operative word is “may”.

Blockchain is nothing more than an accounting system that allows tracking where an entry to the blockchain, once entered, can’t be altered. However, unlike blockchains in cryptocurrencies where the blockchain entry is integral to the spending of the “coin”, blockchain applied to real items relies on the honesty of the people making the entries in the blockchain that is associated with the transfer of the item. In other words, an entry to a blockchain used for tracking a tangible asset can be falsified when created, but once an entry is created, it can’t be altered. In addition, it’s difficult to come up with a system that insures the tangible asset associated with a given blockchain is in fact the correct tangible asset.”

10/10, all the points and you win a cookie, Sir.

Techs trust People because their SQ sucks. Data is the new gospel, it seems.

Why would food need an audit? What happens if the governing body thinks you have too much?

NP? YP. Property will always exist and be consolidated. As advanced as we like to think this 21C hellscape is, it still comes down to who owns the mines, that retain the resources, to literally, physically build these systems.

http://asq.africa.ufl.edu/files/v16a6.Kabemba.HD_.pdf
Well, shit. Guess we have to pray for a Godly EMP blast with a curving radius. Better pray to your chosen solar deity.
BTW, they wanna track and record what you eat.
http://uk.pcmag.com/news/90821/how-a-global-supply-blockchain-could-stop-foodborne-outbreak
For your own good, obvi.
Cash will still totally work, until there’s sufficient political push that it doesn’t.
This is hardly the first time I’ve mentioned food security as an existential risk and they hardly do either, since there’s a serious, national problem that hi-tech pen-pushing isn’t going to fix.

It looks like it would help though and that’s all they really care about – expensive crap that looks impressive to voters. Rather than prevent fifty people get the shits for a week for being too lazy to cook [see end], maybe we could rein in the impulse to pull a Geldoff and notoriously fail to ‘feed the world’ like an errant deer and just focus on our own doorstep, our own, singular, one little country at a time?

If you can’t do that, are you really qualified to run a student council?

Digital spread-betting won’t plant more crops locally and won’t make them healthier either.

Tea is good but toast is crunchy.

If you want to know what really causes food contamination, look up the hygiene ‘standards’ for the many immigrants working food. They don’t wash, they don’t wipe, some do with their hand. Illegal ones aren’t screened for disease, legal ones rarely are either. They’re cheaper for a reason.

Slavery (wages) will continue in America until the Left decides it wants to forego cheap burritos for human rights.