Innovation (technologicallly driven) – Page 44

Overabsolute Majority Report

On this sad day (in NL), only a hint of a mer à boire on our future that will be – not so happy. Possibly.
Where the dystopian future scenarios are more right than the on the surface by and large generic tending-to-rosy robot movies predict. With Ex Machina having some interesting thoughts (again) on AI and what it is to be human but in the end also falling back to common standards. And with the similalry common flaw of expecting ‘robots’ to become near-human possibly to the point of indistinguishability [nice word] – that will then operate in a world where ‘individuals’ would be the unit of existence-currency. With no ‘government’ in sight, at least not in today’s sense where even the largest governments (agencies) are still made up of human elements. There is something, but it doesn’t matter too much for the discourse. Where the dystopian worlds we’ll live in (big question marks all around) may have quite a different set of physical media, e.g., all-digital.

Which makes it possible to see today’s (supra-)governments, the largest of them in particular and including the globally biggest private companies, where ‘company’ isn’t between a platoon and battalion of men anymore, as supra-national organisation forms in the abstract.

This already causes problems when one would want to get redress from e.g., the ‘financial industry’ and before, to tackle the military-industrial complexes that were (are?). This will cause problems now that the complexes are informational-industrial-military, with the middle part in the driver’s seat and the two others as wingman, protecting.

In the future further out, the global complex may be beyond the Singularity (negative view), about which I posted quite a bit before. How will we approach such overlord(s) when completely abstracted, sublimated ..? Hm, gotta read up on Negri&Hardt a bit more…

But for now:

[When centres/seats of power were only this big; Madrid]

Yeah, right; for your kids …?

The title says it all: in the Wired article here.
Though I don’t get the strike-out at desk. To kids.

But hey, the title here. And:

[For no reason whatsoever, another Van Brienen house, Den Haag]

Unpersonal AI

… a trope worth extending: How we still (apparently want to ..!?) see the future of AI and robotics merged into android (no capital) forms… As in Ex Machina and many others: ‘Intelligent’ (like linked here) human-shaped robots taking over, or not.
Whereas of course ASI will strike us through its supra-individual form it already almost has. Not as the military-industrial complex that was already a common-form supra-individual thing, but as a really medium-/materialisation-independent form. With room to spare for all sorts of ‘dysfunctional’ behaviour and ‘thoughts’, and still hands(?) down being our overlords and usurpers that undo us in a blink.
Or maybe we’re halfway there already. With maybe still some select group at the wheel, behind some veil, pulling off some shady trickery with constitutions (multiple). To off themselves, by a glitch.

Dystopian, eh? Well, for now, there’s:
DSCN6248
[’cause we love the quaint, old … Strasbourg or so]

Not much on the books

Soo… We have been hearing for years, maybe for a decade already, that print books were completely dead, either already or within a couple of years … And now, the reports are that ebooks have an whopping … 15% market share. No, no typo, not 85% or 95% or even 105%, but just 15%.
So much for the Through of Disillusionment …

What if … what if subsequent ‘trends’, that are a great many in number, since, would have the same exponential quod non growth rates hence amount to not much ..?
Yet … As ‘exponential’ i.e. sigmodial-at-best growth goes, big blots on the hype-radar but under the actual radar of real life?

A lot of lapidary references. Hence, for now I’ll leave you with:
DSCN1147
[Old but ‘still’ very fashionable in its entirity, London]

Ack or ook ..?

Yes, there we are again, on the subject of ‘Ethical’ hacking.
Because I came across such a ‘Certified Ethical’ Hacker once again. Which made me think (again…) about the allure of that. And then it struck me: It’s just a matter of replacing ack with ook and we’re all set!

Think about it; and ook does for money what others do for fun and ulterior motives… So does an ack. An ook can be certified (licensed) and get government-controlled medical/physical check-ups, by another bodily-educated professional. An ack can be and get the same; through permanent education requirements and peer review.

But what an ook can’t get, is the Ethical label that the ack has – for no apparent reason and it should be the other way around: Where the ook has proven her (majority; unless some ladies in the readership have sufficient experience to validly claim the opposite) role in society since the dawn of time/mankind/human society, the ack dabbles in what somewhat similar but short by aeons, is a crook’s business.

So, CEH better refer to the ooks out there. For now:

[It’s … Name That City time again!]

Oh hey, quoted (at a distance)

Oh hey, I got quoted (almost … I mean at an enormous distance) by some reputable (?) institution.
Where that body did jump to all sorts of conclusions (see my next Monday 27 April post squared with my 3 April post against (?) those), but in the passing mentioned an arms’ race known to modern man already for decades as if it were something new. In this here piece.

What’s the aim, then? To have all sorts revert to Flipping ..?

To leave you with:
DSCN3994
[Still? against intruders, Trier]

Culpable misinformation

The inescapable Bruce was very mild, characterising Comey’s texts as a joke. Like here, on this. Whereas puppets everywhere (in NL as well, here) can show only a handful cases if any at all where mass surveillance (like this by InfoSec Taylor:

explains) has been key. Referring not to any paraphrase (here) of Ben Franklin (“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”) ..?

But the point is: Where failure to act may be culpable in the same way that acts may be, deliberate (intentful) misrepresentation by omitting knowledge and/or presenting false conclusions may be as culpable as outright lying. In particular, when in the public sphere (of income) where speaking the truth (the whole, and nothing but…) is part of the deal, however indirectly through defense of a constitution. Wilful neglect of that duty (that may include informing oneself properly!) is a scam, con, deceit, fraud.

So, come clean. And:

[F..tis didn’t get away with it; too simpleton despite pretense]

Ah, some comms overview

Still looking for a definitive (if there’s such a thing) categorisation of ‘social’ media, some tweet flew across my screen (as is its type) that, well, at least has some pointers. To this TechCrunch article.
But, as I indicated already in this here my own earlier post, I asked for a classification that would not only cover some of today’s (social, actual or not, or not) media but also the past ones. To be able to see whether and if not when how, changes occurred over, e.g., the past four decades and back through times immemorial. Where the TC article only has some latter-day media, not even categorised with all dimensions I foresaw. But then, it’s something … maybe memyselfI will pick up the subject later, and expand.

For now, I’ll leave you with:

[Unsure how open for discussion; Toronto]

Your Things’ Id, Ego, Super-Ego

Just putting it out there; my pres at the very successful IDentity.Next conference last week in Noordwijkerhout. Though it is without any actual speaker notes, you may still get the points – or we may have a discussion about certain uncertainties therein.
I’ll stop now; too much in the unwind mode still, due to the great discussions on the spot.

So, here it is. And this:

[Things creeping up on you; Zuid-As]

Model code

In the race to get everyone and your grandmother (but in particular, ‘youth’) to code as that would be the new literacy, this here piece arrived quite in time.
In which Chris Granger explains that modelling the world around us (and taking it in), is the new literacy. [Read the article; it’s a full stretch more intricate than that actually.]

Right. With a number of sideline qualifications. But I don’t have the time right now to elucidate… They’re in the order of “But then, calculus and basic reading skills are required to understand the world and be able to deal with it. So it’s not that the old forms of literacy will go away (on the contrary; dismal education globally (sic) should be repaired, in particular numeracy) but they will be augmented. This will require a massive, huge! upgrade of about all teachers at all levels – which will not happen anytime soon. And programming skills are only the basics one needs to be able to analyse, model, and design the world around us, much like + and – are required to understand one’s income – assuming one has or needs money to live – or even money, or society’s functioning.
Let alone understand culture. Isn’t culture what is being transferred in Education ..?”

And so on. But as said, time limits… See this, too. Hence:
DSCN7557
[Baltimore is old. ?]