3 ms·

> and way more false leads, with biased algorithms that lead to the harassment of tens of thousands, if not millions, and without them ever knowing why they are

> and way more false leads, with biased algorithms that lead to the harassment of tens of thousands, if not millions, and without them ever knowing why they are even harassed in such a way. If there is one thing I feel like people should understand about algorithms and computers, it is about this. Just because something is computed does not make it more accurate. It just means greater precision based on the specifications and initial assumptions. More inaccurate calculations does not equal better. Greater dependency on machines to do our reasoning for us, I am partially concerned, has our species ignoring their own capacity to reason for themselves. The thing I can't understand is how these people who do spy have any sense of self of which to reason with. The more they focus on that which exists outside of themselves, the harder it is to discern between what they are and what they fight against. I wish people would just honestly, sit down for like a year or something, and take a good long look in the mirror and introspect, rather than everything being action action action. Just because everything looks like it's moving doesn't mean it actually is.

acqq 12y ago
Just as the historical perspective, the automatic data processing was used even before electronic computers, and even by the Nazi regime to support genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II That's why it's important to actively care and to organize the society to minimize the potential for the undesired use of the possibilities given by the technology: the technology can amplify both the good and and the bad acts. The society has the chance to influence that easier before the tipping points and only after a lot of harm already being done after them. On another side, once the tipping point is reached, even if some system didn't exist before, it would be implemented fast. The position of the "consumers" in the digital world is also something that has some interesting comparisons: http://www.wired.com/2012/11/feudal-security/ http://www.wired.com/2012/11/feudal-security/
- drcomputer 12y ago
  In theory, I absolutely agree with you. In practice, every choice as to how to care and organize society become a question of what to control and what not to control. Who can be trusted, and who can't trusted. Then it just seems to go in a circle. Regulation on top of regulation. People make judgments and claim they are assertions rather than assumptions, based on correlative and observationally biased inferences. The system becomes deterministic based on individual impulse, rather than caution, patience, and 'opened' trust. With individual impulse, it becomes a question of who decides to shape society, rather than how society is shaped. Whoever makes a move first has an advantage in the short term. But this has the potential to be twisted by greed, selfish desire, and delusions of grandeur, or the idea that "what works for me will work for you". Then things get directed towards tipping points. People start believing in power hierarchies, groups, differing orders and levels of intelligence and ability as intrinsic and permanent properties of their existence. And so the pendulum keeps swinging.
  - acqq 12y ago
    Then, not in theory, but in practice, do you think we should care about the topic of the article? Is it good when we discover what is actually being done "behind the closed doors" related to our profession right now? It's also a task of every engineer to consider what could go wrong.
    - drcomputer 12y ago
      I don't think we will ever be at a point in our existence, where we know what to do before we have to do it. > It's also a task of every engineer to consider what could go wrong. Within a reasonably defined threshold. If I have a business making rubber ducks, I don't have to design those rubber ducks with the specification that they withstand temperatures of 200 degrees C. > Then, not in theory, but in practice, do you think we should care about the topic of the article? I do care. I choose to not work for places that I disagree with the intent and usage of such things. I know I have the capacity and capability to work at those places. I don't want to contribute my intellect to something I consider destructive, to the best of my knowledge and awareness to do so. But even given my choices, I never feel like I have the right answers. I always can find perspectives in where I could be wrong. I try to pick the one I consider 'least wrong'. It's not really a lesser of two evils thing, it's more reducing the probability for things to go wrong. I'm also young and probably very naive in many ways.

acqq 12y ago

Just as the historical perspective, the automatic data processing was used even before electronic computers, and even by the Nazi regime to support genocide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_during_World_War_II That's why it's important to actively care and to organize the society to minimize the potential for the undesired use of the possibilities given by the technology: the technology can amplify both the good and and the bad acts. The society has the chance to influence that easier before the tipping points and only after a lot of harm already being done after them. On another side, once the tipping point is reached, even if some system didn't exist before, it would be implemented fast. The position of the "consumers" in the digital world is also something that has some interesting comparisons: http://www.wired.com/2012/11/feudal-security/ http://www.wired.com/2012/11/feudal-security/

drcomputer 12y ago
In theory, I absolutely agree with you. In practice, every choice as to how to care and organize society become a question of what to control and what not to control. Who can be trusted, and who can't trusted. Then it just seems to go in a circle. Regulation on top of regulation. People make judgments and claim they are assertions rather than assumptions, based on correlative and observationally biased inferences. The system becomes deterministic based on individual impulse, rather than caution, patience, and 'opened' trust. With individual impulse, it becomes a question of who decides to shape society, rather than how society is shaped. Whoever makes a move first has an advantage in the short term. But this has the potential to be twisted by greed, selfish desire, and delusions of grandeur, or the idea that "what works for me will work for you". Then things get directed towards tipping points. People start believing in power hierarchies, groups, differing orders and levels of intelligence and ability as intrinsic and permanent properties of their existence. And so the pendulum keeps swinging.
- acqq 12y ago
  Then, not in theory, but in practice, do you think we should care about the topic of the article? Is it good when we discover what is actually being done "behind the closed doors" related to our profession right now? It's also a task of every engineer to consider what could go wrong.
  - drcomputer 12y ago
    I don't think we will ever be at a point in our existence, where we know what to do before we have to do it. > It's also a task of every engineer to consider what could go wrong. Within a reasonably defined threshold. If I have a business making rubber ducks, I don't have to design those rubber ducks with the specification that they withstand temperatures of 200 degrees C. > Then, not in theory, but in practice, do you think we should care about the topic of the article? I do care. I choose to not work for places that I disagree with the intent and usage of such things. I know I have the capacity and capability to work at those places. I don't want to contribute my intellect to something I consider destructive, to the best of my knowledge and awareness to do so. But even given my choices, I never feel like I have the right answers. I always can find perspectives in where I could be wrong. I try to pick the one I consider 'least wrong'. It's not really a lesser of two evils thing, it's more reducing the probability for things to go wrong. I'm also young and probably very naive in many ways.