Author: Maverisk

Just a short note as I’m delivering three days of lecture to executive MBAs-to-be on, among others, this subject:
Fairness in AI is beyond mere (??) debiasing training data like here.
It’s more about: waddyamean, fairness? for which I happened to have found a very good overview [plus dabbling tool] here. When one cannot per se decide on principle, what happen with development of proper systems …?

I don’t know. Neither do you. And:

[Art, another difficult definition thing; Smithsonian DC]

Note’let: How would the world innovate, if we had paid better attention to what some of the great ones had to prophesize about our past/present ..?

As illustrated by the already onto himself most agreeable futurist Ross Dawson in this piece, on the above and his list in general. When we read now what laid in store for us, wouldn’t we have been better off if we had taken the sources and pointers from those, and tried to implement them, rather than finding out now what we could have known and achieved earlier in time?

Of course we learn from history that we don’t learn from history, mainly because history does repeat but in ways we don’t recognize.
But also because we apparently don’t want to take the wise insights that do get formulated into actual implementations.
We don’t learn the lessons that get spelled out for us. And we all know:
Lessons are repeated until they are learned.

May we learn now, please ..?
And for your learning pleasure:

[Correction of errors; Courts, of Justice, London]

Just a musing, along with some stories relating to the IPOing of ‘unicorns’ quod non that seems to have picked up recently – are the last ones of a generation cashing out, or is it a true longer-term sine wave thing, or what?
The musing being, that many reasons can be given. Like here. But Sinister Me had a hunch there could also be something in play somehow that relates to most tech (and other) giants’ ability to dodge taxes everywhere, and with any new huge-from-the-word-go fund, somehow new tax evasion opportunities open up for wily investors. Like in diversifying the portfolio, similar to holding a diversified portfolio of loss compensation vehicles.
Anyone can shed a light on this ..?

Yours,

[Once were expats working for Big Oil here, now …; Westpuntbaai Curaçao]

Deliberate qua skewspeak.

Was triggered by this article, with the pic of a sub. That is waaay over size, when one would consider not needing the space for hoomans (and no need for much oxygen ..?); redesigning a drone sub from scratch might give quite different results.
Smaller, probably. More flex. Less visibility, in all sound / electromag fields. Possibly, cheaper builds (no need to care for human safety ..?). Have a look at what free design did for aerial, fixed-wing drones à la Raptor.

Surely, the Navy already is experimenting with drones beyond the cable-attached, close-by controlled, kind ..? What about their designs, re-optimised (e.g., using genetic algos as here and here) with a considerably altered set of constraints or what?
Where are the pics ..? [Will sign an NDA…]

Plus:

[Already off-average, even when classically designed… analog pic at Twente AFB, when that still was]

Repairbotwho ..?

I posted about this idea in the recent past [this post written long before-the-latter-hand, to add a dose of confusion as if you needed that even more], and finally got some positive news …. in here.

Finally. Now let’s get this through, singularity-wise; like letting the self-learning improve, and copying it n times with n → ∞ so sloppy coding becomes a thing to aim for (given meticulous inefficiency versus scribbeling∧’auto’correcting efficiently).

Deal?
To sweaten it:

[Unconfusing your design …? Porto]

Awww, anyone with me on loathing the abuse of Language by

• Misstating the ownership of billion-dollar [last time I looked, still had some value; may have dropped any amount since typing this] companies. They’re not yours, they’re theirs. The 0.001%.
• Misstating the ownership of you yourself. Since you are completely p0wned by them.

That’s what you get when you speak/write of ‘my Instagram’ or ‘my facebook’ or even ‘my socials’. Hahaha, you just said the equivalent of ‘I completely destroyed my privacy and have given up all rights to human decency to money-grabbing companies that [literally] couldn’t care less about me or my normal free functioning in society after they sucked the value out of my personal data and then don’t care and throw me away like a discard squeezed lemon.’ If you’re lucky, you’ll end up in the Asphodel of some ML weights but probably nahhh.

Stop it. It being both the tragic language and the sharing.

On that happy note:

[Your privacy ship has sailed once you come to utter such language-mangling; Porto]

Came across a situation where DevOps-style ML (deep-l ..?) was used in flash financial business. Without too much QA; merely empowering the developer/trader-trained staff to do their thing. Asked about architecture, complexity, legacy and (Taleb-style) fragility.

Got no real answer. Seems like a risky thing. Not as in risky == having some Normal distri, but as in risky == bet the business including the well-being of all employees and their extended families for a generation and a half.

As is (over?)summarised in this tweet:

We’ve gotten to the point where many companies are building faster than they can learn. Velocity is *not* the problem.

Kicker is… if you do this long enough eventually the complexity catches up to you. And velocity/ability to “deliver” IS the problem. #prodmgmt #ux #design

— John Cutler (@johncutlefish) April 29, 2019

Anyone out there that has a clue about how to Control these sort of things? I have, I can. Just call.
And:

[’cause I need a refill]

Am I or not ..?
That depends. I’m willing to go for not, though. Slacking it is.
As for the read, I’d say have a look back at this, and this (do these still exist?), and see how far we’ve come swinging back to that again, then. Per the above link. Which I enjoy.
In an unrelated note, recall this. Also, this:

I trained an AI (ML) system on a vast array of input, and found that the best way to become a billionaire is to be a child of one. Slaving away your life ('perseverance') leads to poverty throughout your life with odds a billions to a handful. Extremely irrational!

— Jurgen van der Vlugt (@jvdvlugt) July 1, 2019

That’s All, Folks!

But for:

[If only they’d bring back this, in a (technology-wise) modern version without touching the style… Then flying could be beautiful again.]

If you know what the title refers to, you have my sympathy.

Was thinking: Under (sic) the GDPR, just any EU country can have their DPA issue opinions (‘guidelines’ – you know how they go) at will, regarding clarification of apparently foggy GDPR clauses or constructs. These are then communicated EU-wide, and in the level-playing-field spirit, taken as serious advice for ‘local’ DPAs to be adopted (or face later complaints…).

This sometimes goes right, sometimes not so much.
Point is; these things get taken as authoritative (try fighting DPAs through the courts; all will be long dead economically before any conclusion would be reached) – all across the EU but those ‘local’ DPAs don’t have much jurisdiction there. Like, none. Or sovereignty has been abandoned.

Or will any DPA go as far as stating that some of their colleague’s guidance was in error, or will not be adopted, opening up the avenue for claims (non-level playing field), etc. …!?
Think again. Your thoughts, please…

And:

[Or we’ll have to sail to other shores, then… As if privvezee is such an issue there.]

An uptick I see. In the number, and profundity, of posts about ‘IT departments’. One of the more recent, and insightful, this:

With various others, older and more recent, focusing on about the same issue. It ties in with this, on the vagueness of the Value definition, perpetuated also by this.

All being Bad. But unless that Value thing is defined better and IT departments are allowed to pursue the resulting objectives on their own without ex-ante efficiency targets over innovation effectiveness targets, we’ll be stuck or be running in circles, not necessarily of the virtuous kind…

Any ideas, about that V trope ..?
[Edited to add: The above-linked methodology pusuer has more already, so track his thoughts and then add…]

Plus:

[Perfectly to spec. This was at … gee don’t recall; temporary exhibit anyway]