What surprised me most about this article is that as far as I'm aware, Russia is so far behind the forefront on machine learning research that hearing Putin speak on this subject is like hearing the president of Portugal say it.
I'd bet a rent check on China having strong AI before Russia any day.
I would bet money that North Korea will not first-strike, and the US military will not fulfill a first-strike if directed.
My premises are that North Korea is a rational actor, and their overwhelming priority is preservation of their regime, and they know without a doubt they can't win a war against South Korea - let alone South Korea and its allies.
I thought the author's idea that it is prohibitively difficult to create exploits in a vacuum, and need to know the specific configuration of your adversary's systems in order to be able to attack or counter-attack was interesting.
If you think it is appropriate for your nation to maintain the ability to respond, then, pragmatically, you support either your nation intruding in other's systems or your nation maintaining a weak deterrent response.
"Operation “Nitro Zeus” illustrates this thinking. As Buchanan explains, in the early stages of the Obama Administration, U.S. hackers went on an expansive hunt for “zero-day” vulnerabilities in Iran’s strategic infrastructures. The raid targeted the Fordo nuclear facility that Washington suspected was purifying uranium to weapons grade. But that was not all. The United States also penetrated Iran’s financial, transportation, and air defense systems. The invaders acted in anticipation of the possible failure of diplomatic efforts to curtail Iranian enrichment activity peacefully. They crafted weapons of war even as they strived to avert it."
If I had a level 5 autonomous car that was compromised by someone who wanted to kill me, they probably could. Or they could just push me down a flight of stairs.
Ultimately, I am alive because nobody cares enough to murder me.
The Justice Department is fighting for information on all of the visitors to the website disruptj20.org, as well as log files on when and from where the visitors logged onto the site, what they looked at, and emails related to the site. The site at the center of the storm bills itself as a platform connecting Trump protesters and "support[ing] the massive and spontaneous eruption of resistance across the United States that’s happened since the election."
The Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, subsequently entered into an interesting interchange with a reporter. When asked by Mark DiStefano, a reporter from ZDNET, “Won’t the laws of mathematics trump the laws of Australia? And then aren’t you also forcing people onto decentralized systems as a result?” The Prime Minister of Australia said “the laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."
"in 2010, Assange vowed to publish documents on any institution that resisted oversight... “We don’t have targets,” Assange said at the time."
But by 2016, WikiLeaks had switched course, focusing almost exclusively on Clinton and her campaign.
Approached later that year by the same source about data from an American security company, WikiLeaks again turned down the leak. “Is there an election angle? We’re not doing anything until after the election unless its [sic] fast or election related,” WikiLeaks wrote. “We don’t have the resources.”
Anything not connected to the election would be “diversionary,” WikiLeaks wrote.
I don't think comparing the adoption rate of Nazi ideology in nations where it was historically successful to nations where it was historically unsuccessful is appropriate.
A more equivalent comparison is Nazi ideology in Germany/Austria to Klanist ideology in the United States. The list of US politicians with Klan affiliation is long.
…[based upon self-evaluation,] 21 percent of lawyers qualify as problem drinkers, while 28 percent struggle with … serious depression. Only [25% of] lawyers answered questions about drug use… “It’s left to speculation what motivated 75 percent of attorneys to skip over the section on drug use as if it wasn’t there.”
Of all the heartbreaking details of his story, the one that continues to haunt me is this: The history on his cellphone shows the last call he ever made was for work. Peter, vomiting, unable to sit up, slipping in and out of consciousness, had managed, somehow, to dial into a conference call.
At Peter’s memorial service in 2015, [q]uite a few of the lawyers attending the service were bent over their phones, reading and tapping out emails. Their friend and colleague was dead, and yet they couldn’t stop working long enough to listen to what was being said about him.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=...