|
Joe Woodbury wrote: Devs: It does a statistical analysis.
Marketing: It's AI!!!
I did a short AI introduction in Python and having worked in medical data analysis I had a little bit of familiarity with how data models work.
The introduction which claimed to be AI was simply statistical data modelling from what I could see.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: The introduction which claimed to be AI was simply statistical data modelling from what I could see.
It kind-of is; the difference being that the developer doesn't do the majority of the modelling, and will probably never know how it was done.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
That's a very good point!
The interesting part of the tutorial is that it guides you through first examining the 'shape' of the data(for wont of better words). Then based on that it guides you towards choosing an AI model that works best with this sort of data 'shape'.
Which is exactly what I saw clinicians and statisticians do when I was working in the field of medical data research.
As you point out the difference being that it took the statisticians months of hard work to come up with a model and prove it worked, while now you can pick a ready made model off the shelf and see if it works with your data.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: while now you can pick a ready made model off the shelf and see if it works with your data.
Partially because...
GuyThiebaut wrote: it took the statisticians months of hard work to come up with a model and prove it worked
People still (although I don't know for how long) are often necessary to develope something never done before... once it is done, it can probably be modelled and done faster by machines, but that's the second step
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: People still (although I don't know for how long) are often necessary to develope something never done before
That's one of the main reasons for AI: how long would it take to develop a working statistical model to operate over a complex system?
E.g. facial recognition -- where would you even start to write code that would recognise any face from different angles?
Fortunately, no-one will ever have to design or code it; AIs do all the detail work.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Gosh, What could go wrong ? I just hope they restrict its recreational browsing to the Disney Channel.
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
Newly registered domains (NRDs) are created at the astounding rate of about 200,000 every day and a recent report indicates that 70 percent of these are malicious or suspicious and used for a wide range of nefarious activities. You must be *this* old to open in browser
|
|
|
|
|
www.codeporject.com
And you are infected / scammed / hacked / pwnd 
If those people use their talent to improve things... 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Golly, if only we could come up with a way of automatically going through the content of web-sites, to see if they contain anything malicious.
We could call it, I don't know, a caterpillar, or a spider, or something.
And here's an idea!
Search engines could use such a tool, too, to help them get results for searches!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: automatically going through the content of web-sites, to see if they contain anything malicious.
I don't see how a machine could recognize malicious code any more than a machine could recognize hate speech.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
True.
Wow!
New idea!
How about we make a program that detects malware!
Golly-gosh!
Why did no-one ever think of that before?!?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If you're referring to anti-virus software, then that's different.
With anti-virus software, it ultimately was a human who decided that certain code is malicious, and entered its signature into the detection database, no?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey!
How about we find some way to link the caterpillar(TM) to an anti-virus or something like malwarebytes!
It might sound really, really impossible, but I'll bet some bright spark could do it!
I'm just full of incredibly original ideas, this week!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Uh...yeah.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
In case you weren't really paying attention, what I have been saying is that the technology for dealing with this is so commonplace that it's a trivial problem.
There is no good reason why a new malicious web-site should survive more than a few seconds, and there is no good reason why a web-site that is suddenly converted to being malicious should remain on-line more than a few minutes.
However, legal entities that have the budget and the remit to deal with such issues are too busy metaphorically driving around in fast cars and playing the hero to do anything about it, and tech firms and ISPs make too much profit from it to be willing to do anything about it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
On Wednesday, at the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva, a panel of government experts debated policy options regarding lethal autonomous weapons. And it will have a blue screen
And a really nice icon.
That changes every few months
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say Google (though I do own some Amazon stock so will I be let to live if it's Amazon?)
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on if you have a Prime subscription. I think they're on second-day killing.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: government experts
OMOTD.
(Oxymoron Of The Day)
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
MS Power User: For Microsoft, the US military is likely to be a key growth sector.
I wonder why stories like this[^] don't get a lot of attention, and why all other "Big Tech" companies except ms are facing years of being hounded by the US government.
And I can't help but wonder if ms officials greet visiting army dignitaries with the saluto romano.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: I wonder why stories like this[^] don't get a lot of attention,
No alternatives to that big companies and people like free stuff (although they are still paying it way more with their data) so they don't want to be awaken of their "free" dream.
Mark_Wallace wrote: why all other "Big Tech" companies except ms are facing years of being hounded by the US government.
$$$$ I suppose
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Google's little-known Auto Update Expiration D-Day leaves users bereft of auto software refreshes and more – here's how to check yours This laptop will self-destruct in 6.5 years
OK, not self-destruct, but "stop self-repairing". Nice bit of planned obsolescence there, Big G.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Nice bit of planned obsolescence there,
wasn't it actually prohibited?
Kent Sharkey wrote: OK, not self-destruct, but "stop self-repairing".
Or is this the workaround to avoid fines?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean it just stops getting updates to the underlying linux system, or that the Chrome browser also stops getting updated?
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I would have thought just the Linux, but they do seem to imply Chrome as well.
Quote: However, end-to-end updates for all our devices to ensure the highest levels of security requires dependencies on many third-party hardware and software providers so we cannot indefinitely ensure that older Chrome devices will receive updates to enable new OS and browser features.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
