Category: ERM, GRC

AI learning to explain itself

Recently, there was news again that indeed, ABC (or The ‘Alphabet’ Company Formerly Know As Google) was developing AI that could improve itself.
O-kay… No sweat, or sweat, qua bleak future for humankind, but …
Can the ‘AI’ thus developing itself, maybe be turned first to learn how to explain itself ..? Then, this [incl link therein!] will revert to the auditors’ original of second opinions … Since the self-explanatory part may very well be the most difficult part of ‘intelligence’, benefitting the most from the ( AI improving itself )2 part or what?

And:

[Improving yourself as the imperative; Frank Lloyd Wright’s Beth Sholom at Elkins Park, PA]

Simply laborious

After some post recently, I was triggered to summarise – and expand …
Since there is a bit of history missing. Being the Theory of Firm. Which is, among other stuff but au fond, about the creation of the manager. As the go-between of ’employees’, as the go-between between the workforce and Capital. As the foreman, the one in charge of coordination – when the people come together because they can achieve more in cooperation than the sum of their individual efforts, through specialisation of labour, those specialised contributions need coming together in one way or another, and the provider of capital (the thing that other raw materials are paid with hence the about-only thing to receive deferred payment; don’t get me started on the so absolute quod-non of the ‘inherent right’ to rent above trivial liquidity and risk compensation…) will want to talk to just one. Originally, sometimes capital provider and leader/cooperation-initiator/manager were one, until external capital was required from parties that extorted control. Big sic there.
Well, now don’t go blaming me that it is on the capital provider side that criminally biased rules and regulations have crept in. Flash capital, extortionist locust ‘capital management’ groups, et al., have forced their mob ways into ‘normal’ conduct — almost; the Rheinland model [first, learn to pronounce that correctly, then, get to understand it fully, then, return and prostate and happily receive your life sentences for your transgressions] still holds sway, and sometimes veers back a bit. A bit.

So yes, to the latter, that is criminal, and the cause of cushions called management layers, ever more wrongly devised and developed. And yes, we would need some totalitarian revision of organisational structures to cure it all. Including, starting with, the redefinition [i.e., throwing away all that function there smoothly now, as they denounce their incapacity to really do what’s really required] of middle management and refilling the positions. Also capping CEO pay to, say, something like 10 times the average pay of the bottom 10% of the workforce. All contribute, and a CEO may need a little compensation for when [not if; should be law..!] something goes wrong, his (sic) head rolls. But not too much. When the CEO is sacrificed, something went so wrong that many will get hit; the CEO being in the best position to survive it, qua social and economic strata he should be in. Workers, much less so; much less opportunity to have built buffers, capice?

But maybe not absolute only Owners and Professionals. That will simply not work. Both sides would, even in an ideal world of perfect information everywhere, be buried under control information to the mountainous levels that they wouldn’t have time left [if you’d need more than 25 hours a day to do your work, just work that little longer!] to do their primary jobs…
But a revisit of Galbraith’ four information processing capacity increasing routes, as here, is desperately necessary… Surely, herein lies the way forward to much better organisational design, integrating the latest of possibilities qua information processing and internal and external networking, making possible the creation of true networked organisations and individuals…?

Oh, and:
[Completely undoctored, also unsmoked, pic from Toronto]

Surge ethiconomics

There was already quite some debate about surge pricing, in particular re [illegal] taxi services.
What I missed so far, are discussions about the economic or raher ethical character of abusing surges and their price tag instabilities. Like, how would you depict such developments in price elasticity graphs; shooting up and down on-curve, and curve shifts included. Is orderly society permissive of such hog cycle disruptions ..? [Term pointing at the characterisation of the CEOs that not want to see anything in/human in what they do]
The asymmetry (shooting) on the curve, is market imperfection; the curve shifts in the long run, are better captured by ‘classical’ economics. Again: the ethical ramifications aren’t value-free (tauto), aren’t of uninterest to anyone that values freedom — as that requires markets to function, which is done by regulating them. The latter is proven so many times I don’t even want to discuss it here.

Stock markets, and stocks, are capped qua max change (volatility spikes), the most extreme competitive markets out there;
why wouldn’t other markets have the same ..?

Your contributions in comments, please… Plus:

[Stable, safe, cleared for use; Madrid]

Autoflexelec

Oh (not like here though supported) when will EVs be useful? Like, being available with diesel range (1000kms, seriously! I seriously need that) and station car luggage space (660/1950ℓ – yes really need that, too), at a fair price (which is 2nd hand, not even a fifth of what 40%-featurematching EVs go for today).

No, I’m not going electric today because EVs will get better in a couple of years. I’m not going to waste buckets of money and opportunities by sitting out those years with a severely underperforming car. If others do that; that’s their bad decisions.
But wait; there’s hope around the corner (of the Cobra, Málaga–Ronda and v.v. kind): When we have electric (?) autonomous trucking sometime soon (like Big T is proposing or already developing), the results might be scaled down to anything in the range, in due time. And/or current auto-elecs are scaled up considerably. Squashing my own hope, this will take a couple of years.

By lack of proper alternatives, trying to do away with fully functional transport, is an attempt to hinder the due functioning of society; to be categorised as illegal.

I rest my case. And:

[Once upon a time, in a world far, far away (i.e., not so far Valencia), training was Fashionable]

No Dutch AI

How far behind is the Dutch (startup) scene with AI ..?
That may seem kurt, but …
Really there is no sign of Dutch AI industry or even industriousness.

Unbefitting the Dutch, is it not? ‘We’ should have all the brains needed, the industriousness, the venturing spirit, the openness to things-new.
But apparently, ‘we’re still stuck in collectivist ideals, where rocking the boat is only allowed when for some naïve progress [Uhm this is no sligh to Boyan Slat; on the contrary I and everyone likes his ideas and heart and soul he puts into it]. When searching for ‘Dutch AI scene, hardly anything turns up. This among the hardly search results; ominously.

So, it’s a Shame. And Why ..!?
Yes I did list some why’s but they don’t cut it, against the Aye’s. We need a new élan! How to get such a thing going!?
And:
[If that is the neo-modernistest that you build / apparently want to spend your money on, then well you may be doomed indeed; Zuid-As Ams]

Visual on socmed shallowness

When considering the senses, is it not that Visual (having come to ther play rather late in evolution or has it but that’s beside the point, is it?) has been tuned to ultrahigh-speed 2D/3D input processing ..? Like, light waves particles who are you fooling? happen to be the fastest thing around, qua practical human-scale environmental signals – so far, yeah, yeah… – and have been specialised to be used for detection of danger all around, even qua motion at really high pace (despite the 24-fps frame blinking).
Thus the question arises: What sense would you select, when focusing on shallow processing of the high-speed response type? Visual, indeed. Biologically making it less useful for deep thought and connection, etc.

Now that the world has turned so Visual (socmed with its intelligence-squashing filters, etc.; AR/VR going in the same direction of course), how could we expect anything else that the Shallows ..? Will we not destroy by negative, non-re inforcement, human intelligence and have only consumers left at the will of ANI/ASI ..?

Not that I have the antidote… Or it would be to Read, and Study (with sparse use of visual, like not needing sound bite sentences but some more structured texts), and do deep, very deep thinking without external inference.
But still… Plus:

[An ecosystem that lives off nanosecond trading – no need for human involvement so they’re cut out brutally; NY]

Per vertical lines of defense

What if … Lines of Defense aren’t three (or four or five) ‘horizontally’, but vertical, like actual protection against things getting out of bounds ..?
Wouldn’t that return the whole concept of 3LD, TLD, Three LoD or what’s your favourite abbreviation, to the already tried and tested process control models of yesteryear and when not if Yes, wouldn’t you be found out to be a sort of bumbling eager beaver when you think you’re still doing great and are Really Important and a GRC star and don’t see your kindergarten Importance is called out to hang high ..?

Because then, you’ll need no more big Risk departments with all the procedural justice, compliance on paper (and actual (operating) effectiveness nowhere!), etc., just some nimble support structure. Then, a major part of the conzulting industry would collapse and core management capabilities would have to be returned to formal and practical education and experience-training.

Oh well, one can dream, can’t one?
And:

[A lot of science and engineering there, inside and out, and how beautiful it is (for it); Valencia]

Making yourself less and less special

Over the last couple of decades, we have seen a rather disturbing development. Negative multipliers.
Where the ‘trickle down’ economies have been proven to be the lies that they were assessed to be but no-one listened because the truth already then was buried in the impostor-syndrome shouting of the powerful (not: autorities; they hadn’t any, not: leaders; they didn’t) that were on their way to prove Piketti correct (despite the nitpicky critiques, he was and is; facts overwhelm secondary/tertiary methodology issues). But this is a digression.

Where, moreover, and foremost, sites, platforms, apps, that tried to ‘cut out the middle men’ by brokering themselves … did all a disfavour.
It started with banks et al., once the epitome of the service industries. A large part of the manual processing was transferred to masses of clients. E.g., transactions entry. Left to masses, millions, of unspecialised users thus costing those users millions of man (sic) hours, still today — ad having saved banks much, much less labour costs as management of the processes, coaching the users and systems etc., grew a little and the cheapest categories of labour only saw some cuts.
So, all are worse off, some more than average, and little was saved or made any more efficient or so. All this was sold as Progress and improvement.

This falsehood has been copied into the app world. Where e.g., real estate agents/brokers, are being cut out by self-service apps. Which means less agents/brokers, that were specialised in what they did hence could do it efficiently and earn themselves part of the savings that accrued to the sellers, buyers, since they outsourced their sides in the process not for nothing. The clients, they could earn a living and make enough to provide the brokers with an income. From which the baker could be paid; the baker could pay the butcher, the butcher could pay the supermarket clerk (indirectly), etc.etc.etc. — your classical definition of multiplier effects.
Now that everywhere, not only are people bound to do all sorts of business to which they weren’t accustomed let alone trained, thus losing valuable opportunity to remain specialised i.e., make the most money of their expertise hence had the most available (hum, more or less I know) to multiply (in an economic sense, you pervert mind),
but also numerous links in the multiplier chains are cut out, turning the positive multiplier chains into negative job loss – spend cut chains. It even brings secondary/tertiary markets to life, even when it’s about almost-no-human business…

But will the 0.1% care ..? Not likely.
So we’re doomed. Or ..?

And:

[No time, money to go flaner anymore; M’drid]

Profiling the politics of the GDPR

When looking up the definition of ‘politics’, no-one can escape the notion that it regards something-choice or in any form the application of power to make decisions applying to all members of a group.
When looking up what leeways for profiling there is in the GDPR, even when so completely fellow-traveller-like as e.g., here [apart from the many, many more errors of logical reasoning, of thought, and of morality and ethics in that piece], the special category of data immediately springs to mind … that is about political opinion – representing the individuals’ autonomy in matters of choice. As any behaviour in public of said individuals is a matter of display of preference qua conduct in social affairs. As hence anything that has to do with profiling [even if only for the mundane making decisions of what ads to show to certain groups or not; abstracting even from the right (…) to have a human in the loop, seriously], has to do with political preferences.

Where is the field of study, by the way [not so much; rather a both parallel and intertwined track], of metadata and inference being special2 categories of data, not requiring consent but should’ve been outlawed per se ..?

Plus:

[Artful bars, but suppressing; Brittas Museum London]

Appetite for destruction ..?

Not even referring to the Masterpiece. On the contrary, we have here: … Well, what?
Interested as we all are in the subject, since it is defined still so sloppily, we all look for progress, I started. But stopped, when it turned out … risk appetite is defined in hindsight, with a survived disaster being the appetite threshold. Nice. So you’ll know what your appetite is when it hit you and were lucky enough to survive. If you didn’t survive, you now know you passed the threshold. Same [?] with projects: Only if it fails, do you have to write off the investment. The idea of sunk costs may be an enlightenment..?

Etc.

I believe the CRISC curriculum has other, actually somewhat useful, information on this, and on risk tolerance ..?
Your comments, please.

Plus:
[For 20 points, evaluate the risks, e.g., qua privacy, bird strikes, value development; Barça]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord