3gg

9 ms·

31.
by 3gg 5y ago
Hey deadalus, quick question here: how does all of this compare to Luciferianism and left-hand path kind of stuff? I started reading some of the latter, but I found them to be so ridden with grammar errors that I wish Satan were an English
32.
by 3gg 5y ago
Thank you for the summary. The arrogance and moral bankruptcy of the first two stories are marvels of human behaviour. I was not aware "safe ML" was a thing; I was aware of explanatory models, but I guess the safe ML research you
33.
by 3gg 5y ago
It was discovered by others, not them; they fixed the issue only retroactively when it was called out in public. This lack of oversight is part of what I mean with applying things with caution. And why would they have assumed in the first p
34.
by 3gg 5y ago
With all the bird shit they must be breathing in that room, they must be in for a surprise.
35.
by 3gg 5y ago
Yes, thank you. Analyzing the effects of our technology should be part of the engineering process. The physicists back where I studied all go through a mandatory ethics class. Us software crowd, well...
36.
by 3gg 5y ago
It's more like applying the technology with caution and accountability when you already know beforehand that the output is not error-free.
37.
by 3gg 5y ago
Excellent. One problem in my mind that I don't see discussed enough -- and also not in your other post -- is that there is a large divide between those who use the technology (the cops in this case) and those who supply it, and there i
38.
by 3gg 5y ago
> The deepmind team etc type of group who actually know what they’re doing and the boundaries of what they are working with. You claim that they "know what they are doing and the boundaries of what they are working with" -- and
39.
by 3gg 5y ago
If you are an ML practitioner and you think you're not part of the target audience, then you're probably part of the target audience.
40.
by 3gg 5y ago
Where does Google Vision Cloud sit in your categorization? https://algorithmwatch.org/en/google-vision-racism/
41.
by 3gg 5y ago
I'm not entirely sure I'd fancy a second life as the pigeon in figure (1).
42.
by 3gg 5y ago
> But I also don't think the engineers working in this space are as out to lunch as the author seems to imply. Are you at all close to this space? It sounds you may be underestimating corporate politics and the lack of rigour and et
43.
by 3gg 5y ago
I found this to be a very succinct, sober analysis of ML ("AI") techno-solutionism. Cory is a great writer and knows how to explain ideas in a simple, no-nonsense way. This article reminded me of Evgeny Morozov's "To Sav
44.
by 3gg 5y ago
We can only hope.
45.
by 3gg 5y ago
Looks like I got downvoted for not spending enough time on Reddit.
46.
by 3gg 5y ago
I don't know, it's all a big pass for me.
47.
by 3gg 5y ago
Oculus never took off. The other two you mentioned were already vastly popular (Whatsapp was the most popular thing in the EU back then, now taken over in part by Telegram.) The purchases were made not out of a grand vision for the future,
48.
by 3gg 5y ago
As long as it gets you a blog post. Did you also notice how the TLDR is at the end of that whole rant?
49.
by 3gg 5y ago
People are dealing with their own problems. An education also does not amount to knowing trivia.
50.
by 3gg 5y ago
This guy truly lives in his own universe. To enter the Facebook metaverse, you need to abandon whatever preconceptions you had about humanity, ignore all social and political problems around you, and trascend all previously established limi
51.
by 3gg 5y ago
I guess I get part of your point, but let me also joke a little: > To see a counter-example, look at China. Their system is completely opaque and politicians can easily stymie even the strongest business entities. The judiciary is not in
52.
by 3gg 5y ago
The issues with the "free" paradigm you point out are interesting indeed, and I think I have read some of your points elsewhere. I have also thought that the "free" model -- advertising -- is a creator of bad products, a
53.
by 3gg 5y ago
> Under capitalism, most systems are for-profit. Even governments and charities operate to raise capital to fund projects. I think we're mixing things up here. A non-profit raises funds to run its operations; it does not seek to mak
54.
by 3gg 5y ago
Some are more ethical than others, so I don't think that generalization holds in practical terms. Corporations that draw their revenue from surveillance, however, are off to a bad start on the spectrum of ethics.
55.
by 3gg 5y ago
Simple truths. If we just took for-profit corporations for what they are, things would be easier to comprehend. As far as I understand it, Facebook is a private, not public, space, and they can technically delete anything they want on their
56.
by 3gg 5y ago
How would Apple benefit from this conspiracy? Apple these days is throwing out the "secure" and "private" PR to differentiate themselves from their surveillance capitalist neighbors. They would never do anything that hur
57.
by 3gg 5y ago
https://xkcd.com/538/
58.
by 3gg 5y ago
This is a really good point here. Most corporate development that I have experienced is centered around "features" and speed. "I'm working on a new feature", "there has been a feature request", "the f
59.
by 3gg 5y ago
Syonyk still has a point even though this thread has gone sideways. Plot twist: extended ASCII?
60.
by 3gg 5y ago
Beat me to it. The macho effect is there for sure, but on what grounds do you claim you can write secure C? As far as I know, you can't really prove anything about C unless you severely restrict the language, and those restrictions inc

More ›