Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

arstechnica.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 221 posts

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#201

Post by Houshalter »

nl wrote: post #53
Houshalter wrote: post #7

They literally named it Skynet. They have an evil sense of humor. Actually using machine learning to detect terrorists isn't a terrible idea. But you are going to get an error rate, and probably a high one in the noisy real world. Maybe only 50% of the people you detect are actually terrorists. Maybe it's even worse than that. We can't even test it because there is no validation set and unreliable labels. The reasona…

The reasonable thing to do with that information, would be to surveil them further, search their house, or arrest them. Not assassinate them without a trial. This appears to be what they do? The National Security Agency reportedly tracked phone calls between the courier Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti's relatives in the Persian Gulf to all numbers in Pakistan, and NSA surveillance eventually tracked Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti's locat…

They asked the NSA to defend themselves, to make a comment on the issue. They were totally silent.

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#202

Post by empath75 »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #196
dilemma wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which candidate do you mean will stop it?

Rand Paul would. Bernie Sanders might.

I would have thought Obama would have. I doubt anyone is going to be able to stop it without shutting down the whole intelligence apparatus.

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#203

Post by empath75 »

nl wrote: post #9

This story is stupid. I'm sorry. No fan of the NSA, but the premise behind it is completely ridiculous. There is zero evidence of the repeatably asserted idea that the list this tool generates is any kind of kill list. It's a tool that generates indicators of people that may be worth looking at when trying to find couriers. That's a very specific subgroup of terrorists, and I find it entirely unsurprising that a jour…

The point of using computer models to 'find' terrorists isn't necessarily to find terrorists, it's to abdicate moral responsibility. Everyone can just say they were 'following the model' when it turns out they were wrong. You can't execute a computer for war crimes.

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#204

Post by alanwatts »

spacehome wrote: post #187
alanwatts wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you provide some notable examples where violence has resolved issues in the long term and did not lead to more issues/violence? This thread is in relation to the religious wars currently going on in the middle east. The Jews, Christians, and Muslims have been trying to use violence to resolve their issues in the middle east for thousands of years now to no avail.

A few notable ones off the top of my head: WW2 American Revolutionary War The Roman-Carthaginian wars Genocide of the Ainu in Japan Genocide of the Neanderthals by Homo Sapiens in Europe (Maybe; it's theorized at least) The Gombe Chimpanzee War I'm sure I can come up with more if you like. The primary reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims are having trouble solving their problems using violence is that they're not usi…

>If we look into History we shall find some nations rising from contemptible beginnings, and spreading their influence, 'till the whole Globe is subjected to their sway. When they have reach'd the summit of Grandeur, some minute and unsuspected Cause commonly effects their Ruin, and the Empire of the world is transferr'd to some other place. Immortal Rome was at first but an insignificant Village, inhabited only by a few abandoned Ruffins, but by degrees it rose to a stupendous Height, and excell'd in Arts and Arms all the Nations that praeceeded it. But the demolition of Carthage (what one should think would have establish'd it in supream dominion) by removing all danger, suffer'd it to sink into debauchery, and made it att length an easy prey to Barbarians.—England Immediately, upon this began to increase (the particular, and minute causes of which I am not Historian enough to trace) in Power and magnificence, and is now the greatest Nation upon the globe.—Soon after the Reformation a few people came over into this new world for Concience sake. Perhaps this (apparently) trivial incident, may transfer the great seat of Empire into America. It looks likely to me. For if we can remove the turbulent Gallicks, our People according to the exactest Computations, will in another Century, become more numerous than England itself. Should this be the Case, since we have (I may say) all the naval Stores of the Nation in our hands, it will be easy to obtain the mastery of the seas, and then the united force of all Europe, will not be able to subdue us. The only way to keep us from setting up for ourselves, is to disunite Us. Divide et impera. Keep us in distinct Colonies, and then, some great men, in each Colony, desiring the Monarchy of the Whole, they will destroy each others influence and keep the Country in Equilibrio. [1]

-John Adams

So yes, empires do rise and rule for a time but in the end they grow weak from over reliance on luxuries and having no real competition to fight. In the end these empires based on war always collapse.

But let's take WW2 for example. WW2 led immediately into the Cold War, and the Cold War led into the War on Terror. It is also worth noting the arbitrary national lines drawn along tribal boundaties after WW1 and WW2 and their direct contributions to the enflamed tensions in the middle east today.

>The primary reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims are having trouble solving their problems using violence is that they're not using enough violence.

That is M.A.D.

What exactly is the issue here, what is the end goal that is achieved through violence? It's survival, right?

If we are to ensure survival amidst such increasingly rapid technological proliferation, mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.

[1]http://www.masshist.org/publications/apde2/view?id=PJA01d005

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#205

Post by arca_vorago »

Karunamon wrote: post #200
arca_vorago wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand this response but I think it is the wrong one. Yes, there are many crazy and outlandish conspiracy theories out there that make it easy for the intellectually lazy to dismiss all theories out of hand, but the globalist conspiracy is one that is less and less hidden to the point that you aren't really paying attention if you don't see it. Now, thats not to say there is a single, grand, overarching conspir…

The conspiratorial view of the world is the correct one. Not when said conspiracies are dumped, explanation-free, into the middle of a post without any backing what so ever. Buzzwords like "new world order" are both loaded and uninteresting, and that goes double when most people who've have examined the "evidence" have found it wanting. If globalization is meant, say "globalization".

Deapite the most strong public sentiment connotations, the phrase correctly distinguishes a sect of the globalist group, and is just used as such by me. Hence the phrase was "new world order globalists". Its a loaded term, granted and I could probably find a more descriptive way to articulate it, but focusing on that as criticism is nothing more than grammatical group think as a strawman for the much more importance issues being put forward. Its the lazy way out, eg, "that dude said "nwo", all his point are moot and hes a crazy conspiracy theorist." That essentially the position you took.

Also, are you even in the same thread as me? Theres plenty of context, within my comment and out, thats gives an indicator about why such a comment is relevant to the discussion.

What you have done is perform a knee jerk reaction and now you are backpedalling.

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#206

Post by alanwatts »

sremani wrote: post #166
abecedarius wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We, if you mean the U.S., once considered a large standing army a hallmark of tyranny: e.g. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s6.... is George Washington needing to argue "yet a few Troops, under certain circumstances, are not only safe, but indispensably necessary". How we got from there to over a third of the total world military spending, well, it's a long story, and I don't know what to do,…

@alanwatts, that is the kind of talk that left US exposed in 1812 War and the West Point, Naval academy were a product of realities post-1812 war. You can quote all Madison you want, but the need for professional army was evident through out the world and worked like a charm in 1845 When US wrested massive land from Mexico.

I don't mean to argue against the logic behind the negative-feedback cycle of the security dilemma.

The Madison quote was meant to indicate the historic precedent for over extending oneself on the war front and the ways it has left the civil front critically vulnerable.

However, today, in the electric age, there is no distinction between civil and military fronts.

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#207

Post by alanwatts »

Houshalter wrote: post #198
spacehome wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much love for King, but he was wrong as a point of fact. Violence has by far resolved more issues than anything else.

"The simple fact is that non-violent means do not work against Evil. Gandhi's non-violent resistance against the British occupiers had some effect because Britain was wrong, but not Evil. The same is true of the success of non-violent civil rights resistance against de jure racism. Most people, including those in power, knew that what was being done was wrong. But Evil is an entirely different beast. Gandhi would hav…

>[President George W. Bush] has a vision which can be described with two other words: Manichaean paranoia... the notion that he is leading the forces of good against the empire of evil, that in that setting, the fact that we are morally superior justifies us committing immoral acts. And that is a very dangerous posture for the country that is the number one global power. ... The fact is he squandered our credibility, our legitimacy, and even respect for our power.

-Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former National Security Adviser, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, March 14, 2007

Cultural side note:

"For Hindu thought there is no Problem of Evil" -Alan Watts, The Way of Zen

There is great anxiety among the Western Judeo-Christian tradition about "Evil winning out over Good" that is not so much felt by far Eastern cultures (Hindu, Zen, Taoist etc.). For instance, the concept of Yin and Yang and how they define each other and rely on each other.

St. Thomas Aquinas actually paralleled this concept quite briefly in The Summa contra Gentiles, though such an idea is quite taboo among many fundamentalist Christian traditions today:

>There are in the world many good things which would have no place unless there were evils. Thus there would be no patience of the righteous, if there were no ill-will of the persecutors; nor would there be any place for a vindicating justice, were there no crimes; and even in the physical order there would be no generation of one thing, unless there were corruption of another. Consequently, if evil were entirely excluded from the universe by the divine providence, it would be necessary to less the great number of good things. This ought not to be, since good is more powerful in goodness than evil is in malice, as was shown above. Therefore evil should not be utterly excluded from things by the divine providence.

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#208

Post by spacehome »

kafkaesq wrote: post #192
spacehome wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few notable ones off the top of my head: WW2 American Revolutionary War The Roman-Carthaginian wars Genocide of the Ainu in Japan Genocide of the Neanderthals by Homo Sapiens in Europe (Maybe; it's theorized at least) The Gombe Chimpanzee War I'm sure I can come up with more if you like. The primary reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims are having trouble solving their problems using violence is that they're not usi…

American Revolutionary War Which led to the perpetuation of slavery for another 90 years (which the British were in the process of abolishing throughout their holdings), among other "issues."

Wut?

The American Revolutionary War resolved the conflict between the two parties rather satisfactorily. I did not claim that it ended all violence.

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#209

Post by [deleted] »

empath75 wrote: post #203
nl wrote: post #9

This story is stupid. I'm sorry. No fan of the NSA, but the premise behind it is completely ridiculous. There is zero evidence of the repeatably asserted idea that the list this tool generates is any kind of kill list. It's a tool that generates indicators of people that may be worth looking at when trying to find couriers. That's a very specific subgroup of terrorists, and I find it entirely unsurprising that a jour…

The point of using computer models to 'find' terrorists isn't necessarily to find terrorists, it's to abdicate moral responsibility. Everyone can just say they were 'following the model' when it turns out they were wrong. You can't execute a computer for war crimes.

[deleted]

Re: The NSA’s machine learning algorithm may be killing thousands of innocent people

#210

Post by Karunamon »

arca_vorago wrote: post #205
Karunamon wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conspiratorial view of the world is the correct one. Not when said conspiracies are dumped, explanation-free, into the middle of a post without any backing what so ever. Buzzwords like "new world order" are both loaded and uninteresting, and that goes double when most people who've have examined the "evidence" have found it wanting. If globalization is meant, say "globalization".

Deapite the most strong public sentiment connotations, the phrase correctly distinguishes a sect of the globalist group, and is just used as such by me. Hence the phrase was "new world order globalists". Its a loaded term, granted and I could probably find a more descriptive way to articulate it, but focusing on that as criticism is nothing more than grammatical group think as a strawman for the much more importance…

Use of buzz phrases is generally the mark of "crazy conspiracy theorists" (your words, not mine) or: people who generally have a tenuous grip on concepts like burden of proof and recognition of confirmation bias.

I have yet to see a single thing in this thread that suggests my initial read was incorrect, or indeed anything to indicate your rant contributed anything to the conversation. (Hence: uninteresting)

Like a single link to support your assertions, for instance.

Post reply on HN