controls – Page 8 – Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord

Two AI tipping point(er)s

You may have misread that title.

It’s about tips, being pointers, two to papers that give such a nice overview of the year ahead in AI-and-ethics (mostly) research. Like, this and this. With, of course, subsequent linkage to many other useful stuff that you’d almost miss even if you’d pay attention.

Be ware of quite a number of follow-up posts, that will delve into all sorts of issue listed in the papers, and will quiz or puzzle you depending on wether you did pay attention or not. OK, you’ll be puzzled, right?

And:

[Self-learned AI question could be: “Why?” but to be honest and demonstrating some issues, that’s completely besides the point; Toronto]

No, you're hacked

OK, we have a couple of little things:

“It’s not if but when an organisation is hacked”
This leads to access to some of your personal data however innocious (or not)
Only a handful of your however innocious personal data is needed to identify you and/or take over your ID
Your personal data however innocious on the surface (sic) is with so many organisations.

Syllogically, ID theft will ruin your life, pretty soon.

Now you may counter that … blabla you’re not interesting enough (maybe, but how sure are you, and if you’re so clean your ID has value to the not-so-clean), it won’t happen to you because it hasn’t happened to you (yet, that’s the point) … et cetera.

But oh, you will be hit …

And with that positive reminder, this:

[If life were as simple as at once major global city Edam…]

Four horsemen, with a badge

Now that ‘our failproof heroes of integrity’ (one of those five words is correct) have gained the right to hack and exploit each and every users’ device in their battle (huh) against the four horsemen, each, all and every proof of misconduct of however grave or minor import that anyone would conduct using any such ‘cyber’ device would not hold in court because no-one can prove it was the general user / suspect (sic) that put the data onto there or used it and the police would be implicated as well but cannot prove satisfactory it wasn’t them.

Obliterating any chance of ever proving actual foul horsemen…

But hey, they seem to have wanted that. For a reason? E.g., the above suspects were in majority already among the pursuers ..?

Why would I care… and:

[Your ‘straight’ thinking…; Zuid-As Amsterdam]

Integrity it is / ain't the quote

Given the recent upswing in attention for integrity, it is not strange but unfortunate to see the phrase and concept being so warped it has become a newspeak pastiche.

Integrity … taken as zealously chasing the company’s apparent only purpose… Integrity, taken as the ‘more than compliance’ ideal, then (almost exclusively) pursued in ways that seek only meek compliance with integrity rules [note the irony of ‘integrity’ and ‘rules’ other than in opposition] to get rid of the Dutch Uncles that without fail (yes) fail their own lessons.

Stemming of course from the misconception or more straighforward, lie that employees are only as integer as they align their efforts with the company’s objectives (when push comes to shove, profit being the only one that matters, don’t lie to me or to yourself or to the world ..!).

But then, you miss the mark. Even those that pursue their bizarre political aims through shooting up / blowing up as many totally innocent and irrelevant strangers, claim their integrity … not with the things you’d consider defensible but they do; in their warped-beyond-repair mind they act sincerely and with integrity to their (idiotic) ideas and morale, ethics.

On a less damaging note, re-study Bruce, e.g., as holiday present to ask for (from yourself ;-), and see that integrity may not be what you’re after after all. Integrity being on the side of, and of, the employees individually, for themselves. If they sell their expertise to some company, it’s only that that they can reasonably be expected to deliver, not all and their soul …!

All this, combined with the ridicule in:

“Integrity is a muscle you have to train every day”.

Which points out that apparently, every day you have to separately train (how?) integrity whereas the pool of metrics to determine the efficacy of the training is a vast desert (as it should; all that is of value, is immeasurable and vice versa) — and do you really need that much training; apparently people will daily find so many more detractors …!?

Plus, those that still cling to the above illogic (mult.) about integrity, may need to train their lung muscles every day in similar vein. Or not. Yes, if you’d really understand integrity, you’d see that it is a similar body function.

Oh well, plus:

[The aeons old fight of Order versus Chaos, often mistaken as Good versus Evil; Sevilla]

You're not dumb

That’s why I agree so much with the first of this, and keep on ~~trucking~~ posting for the, hardly a, few reader(s) as per sub/secondhalf title of this. With the previous sentence demonstrating that thus.

OK, still with:

[For the views, with built (in) defences against the hoi polloi; Haut Köningsbourg]

Low standards

The compliance check-box approach is an atrocious thing for and to many things and reasons, but has been induced by the very growth of the industry. Since all margin calls at all controls and controls objectives achievement have been whipped out — and no-one dares to or has the experience for margins calls anymore. How low can your standards of professionalism dive.

Sic transit gloria mundi; the trade once was a veritable gentleman’s (M/F/~) affair, for one put up one’s honour and good name (and standing including life, liberty, welfare and happiness) for the value of the second opinion over the full width of the (opinion about subject matter) playing field.
But one’s good name is no more. Men are no longer honorable, virtue isn’t a thing anymore; pluto reigns, in particular at 1600 Penn Ave — the demise of humanity. In the coming years, the standards will follow; having deteriorated from standards to hold Men to, to straight jackets most easily escaped from by surreptitiously gaming the system, making the system the mockery of men. I repeat myself.

But ideals, values, virtue and all things principle-based will resurface; if only trivially since the now resurgent risk-management approach would not work otherwise. The value is already returning to the dare of the expert to call it not to fold on details.
Hence, new standards will emerge. Pure-principles lists, no nitty-gritty stuff. To be audited on, by knowledgeable advisors that can relate sample controls / -frameworks to the principles and back. The 27k1/2 divide, but strengthened, widened.

About the latter; the renewed gap between principles and samples, will also allow auditors more flex when determining their audit approach as in next week’s post ;-|

By the way, the Dutch may read a bit on the same issue, au fond, and some pointers to solutions, if they’d work (put hypothetically for a reason), in this here piece, released after my draft of the above.

Oh, and:

[A winery, of course; Douro valley]

Oops, there it is! (now you don’t, see it)

Suddenly, there it is, almost as if it’s something new … Malware using stego, as if it might still surprise anyone whereas of course there already was this, and this, and this and this.

What next? Even smarter ad blockers ..? Will not work, as the latter are only in use with the smarter part of the bunch. And smarter ad blockers will be installed by even fewer, as the pay-off is less visible (timely enough).

No, what’s next is first an armageddon [Warning: cultural notion; propose to use the more profound Ragnarök] — of which the result hopefully … is that ads will be marginalised. A great many a socmed platform (looking at you, $FB and other (sic) unicorns) may (signifying possibility and hope) go asunder as ads are their value period

Then, hopefully, Yggdrasil will grow again. E.g., with truly egalitarian platforms; truly global (though that aspect may not have been sunk in the great flood) and free, meaning that also, the trolls can be captured and ring-fenced and not destroy some or many or the platforms / -ideas.

How philosophical one can get in dreams/dreaming, how far off today is the better-than-today’s-should-have-been.

Plus:

[All sorts of meta-info (‘nothing to protect here just move on’/ Í can see you but you can’t see me’ et al); Segovia or what was it]

Golden Oldie Pic of the Day: Interesting read

Yep, again, on how to make things interesting to read …?

No C3PO, just PO

Section 4, article 37, 1(b) of the General Data (sic) Protection Regulation ‘of 2018’ (sic): When the core activities of the controller or the processor consist of processing operations which, by virtue of their nature, their scope and/or their purposes, require regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale;, the instantiation of a Functionary for Data Protection is mandatory.
Yes this includes all organisations dabbling in web analytics… No there’s no threshold (that previously was) of 250 or 500 staff minimum.
But hey, there’s arrangements to hire a Functionary — Privacy Officer works better — for less than full-time or on an (on-going) assignment basis. Come to think of it; the mandatory full independence of the PO (party commissioner, anyone?) may sit better with a hired hand/consultant than with someone on the payroll.
Still, one better study the task list for such a PO. Not a C3PO… The bumbling-through-overly-decent butler is not quite the role model you’d want. Or… you’d want the PO to be such, a harmless nuisance. But then, you waste the PO and budget, and still will be vulnerable. The common anglo-saxon (hopefully -only but doubtful) approach that if something goes wrong, you fire the sitting duck scapegoat and hey presto no more worries all are done, satisfied and no damage’s done, will not work here if it ever did. On the contrary, purposeful negligence, wrongful act, et al., may easily be construed, resulting in long-term mismanagement (still a capital offense…! Oh why can’t we jail all the white collar criminals) the misfortune of all your employees, clients etc. will fall on the Board for once… last paragraph of this applies.

To return to the positive: When arranged well, some things in business may have to change but overall, both your processing will run more smoothly (sic) and you public posture will improve (leading to improved data quality, new clients, and the world is yours, right?).
So, draft a PO Charter and hire me.

Plus:

[Back in the days before live-cams…]

Errors of Your / Machine Learning

Any progress on the front of Machine Learning, i.e., the comparison with how/what humans learn from various teaching formats, and how machines are better at rote learning et al, and how does the perfection of machines learning facts, reflect on what is data processing, what is intelligence, and what is wisdom ..? Where the latter is the area in which of course re retreat ever more, but without the foundation of a life long of learning and experience ..?

[Intermission: Anyone out there still holding on to the ‘you only learn from experience, which is making errors and surviving’? What was so many years of school all about; you’re still no further with calculus than 1+1 equals something more than one — the max you can learn from ‘ experience’ … How did you ‘experience’ History, Science ..? Apparently, there’s quite a base of facts to learn, even (or more?? contra The Shallows) in times of Google. Or, you’ll be the doofus that can not (sic) learn to be intelligent nor wise, and will make any and all rookie mistakes in all situations everywhere, over and over again.
Seems like the base of learning, grows steadily — exponentially…]

Notwithstanding the road (path) to wisdom is through experience … which would ever less be available when machines start to take over the simple, the foundations (qua operationality of work-as-labour), and then the next stage, etc. (since none will be experienced enough to succeed pensionados that still have that subsequent level of understanding). Leaving the abstract thinkers ever more loose in the sky. Hey that’s what’s happening with accountancy, if the industry doesn’t move fast. And will happen everywhere.

But back to the main point: Has Watson-class learning (AlphaGo/Deepmind/Brain (sic), … no not Siri you m.r.n) learned us anything about learning, and/or have we changed learning since machines took over parts of rote learning? Have we changed our view on learing, intelligence, wisdom?

To the disappointed, apologies go; nothing here on how machine learning could lead to the unethics of Computer Says No… Too much of a mer à boire qua research — see here.

Plus:

[Steep, to enlightenment; Girona]