gubbrora · HackerTrans

Consider what happens if neither player wants to go first. P1 passes. P2 passes. Now p1 has to play or the game is drawn. If the game is played with win3 draw1 lose0 rules, then p1 should play even if at a slight disadvantage. A 49 % chance of payoff 3 is better than a 100% chance of payoff 1.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

Just elaborating on this. One way of looking at it is that we turn the attacked program into an interpreter thus bypassing the requirement for executability.

It turns out that a lot of programs can be tricked into interpreting a family of languages called rop chains.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

Agreed

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

If we tried to get these thing 100% right we'd not have time for anything else. Punting is pragmatic.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

People with clearance have to undergo regular lie detectors. Wouldn't be surprised if a loyalty chip is the next step on that path.

I'm not convinced a very dark future is preventable

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

Kinda and kinda not. They have done well so far but they could conceivably be beat by a dedicated chip. They need make sure they keep up with the research so they build what the community wants.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

Sometimes it really is different. And sometimes it isn't.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

There is a subtle false dilemma there. That we have to believe one way or the other.

A better policy would be to assign some degree of belief to both possibilities.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

This is how you get stuck in a local optimum.

Communicate that everything worked in a better way.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

Hypothetically they could require developers to show up in person to their genius bar with government ID. There you would sign a legal agreement.

If you are found to have breached the agreement they'd then call in a swat team to shoot your dog and put you in the rape cage for the rest of your days.

Hypothetically.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

I think something is lost when doing this. I'd bet the researcher who first builds a model and then reaches for ml will outperform the researcher who goes straight for ml.

Building a custom model will help with feature selection. It will provide a baseline to compare the ml model to which can help debug problem points of the ml model. And finally it serves as a sanity check that you aren't leaving a lot of performance on the table.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

No. Per wiki.

Deepfake (a portmanteau of "deep learning" and "fake"[1]) is a technique for human image synthesis based on artificial intelligence. It is used to combine and superimpose existing images and videos onto source images or videos using a machine learning technique known as generative adversarial network.[2] The phrase "deepfake" was coined in 2017.

Because of these capabilities, deepfakes have been used to create fake celebrity pornographic videos or revenge porn.[3] Deepfakes can also be used to create fake news and malicious hoaxes.[4][5]

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

We've been told that the antidote to deep fakes is supply chain security. It's troubling to hear that supply chain security is already broken and by fairly unsophisticated attackers from the sounds of it.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

Is misra as safe as ada? C++ for safety critical systems sounds vaguely concerning

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

Making 1kg of wolf requires way more than 1kg of prey. A rule of thumb I've heard is a step in food chain has only about 10% efficiency.

If wolves were more prey than predator populations would decline very quickly.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

Not if we use nukes or solar to power it.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

My impression is that it's easier to attack than to defend or detect. That would make the country who doesn't attack a sucker. So treating it as an act of war isn't viable.

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

You can deduce immediately that expensing is cheaper than the time it would take to investigate thoroughly

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

They'll literally die soon anyway

gubbrora

7 anni fadiscuss

Hence why I said encrypted.

The impulse to protect people from themselves is a dangerous one. In the article itself we see that in practice it is used to push inescapable spyware.

"But our spyware is better than their spyware!"

Google says they will protect you. But the truth is they are just concern trolling to shut down marginally worse competitors.

For kids and elderly that can't make decisions on their own it could be default -locked to some entity contractually bound to good ior. Locked with an administrator password. That would be a reasonable compromise.

comments