Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

zdo

,,,just Sayin...

Recommended Posts

We are strange (odd) creatures in the grand scheme of things. I can't claim to understand it in it's fullness. If you believe in duality (god and the devil), upon some introspection, one would have to conclude that both sides are exasperated. I don't know...

 

No animal would ever consider the prospects of putting something up their ass (or anyone else's ass for that matter). We are odd...

 

Word to the wise... if you do decide to shove things up your ass... ummm... there is the prospect of creating a vacuum. There have been those that end up in the emergency room because of such things. It's a hole; not a slit... use some discretion.

 

As always... trade it as you see it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how come almost every time I come in this thread it reads

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (1 members and 2 guests) .

?

 

isn't one Agency enough?

I'm just sayin' ...:roll eyes:

 

anyways... hope the guests are enjoying themselves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mere few years ago the idea that artificial intelligence (AI) might be used to analyze and report to law enforcement aberrant human behavior on social media and other online platforms was merely the far out premise of dystopian movies such as Minority Report, but now Facebook proudly brags that it will use AI to "save lives" based on behavior and thought pattern recognition.

What could go wrong?

 

The latest puff piece in Tech Crunch profiling the apparently innocuous sounding "roll out" of AI (as if a mere modest software update) "to detect abortion thoughts before they're reported" opens with the glowingly optimistic line, "This is software to save lives" - so who could possibly doubt such a wonderful and benign initiative which involves AI evaluating people's mental health? Tech Crunch's Josh Cronstine begins:

This is software to save lives. Facebook’s new “proactive detection” artificial intelligence technology will scan all posts for patterns of abortion thoughts, and when necessary send mental health resources to the user at risk or their friends, or contact local first-responders. By using AI to flag worrisome posts to human moderators instead of waiting for user reports, Facebook can decrease how long it takes to send help.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg has long hinted that his team has been wrestling with ways to prevent what appears to be a disturbingly increased trend of live streamed abortions as well as the much larger social problem of online bullying and harassment. One recent example which gained international media attention was a bizarre incident out of Turkey, where a distraught father shot himself on Facebook Live after announcing that his daughter was getting married without his permission. Though the example actually demonstrates the endlessly complex and unforeseen variables involved in human decision making and the human psyche - in this case notions of rigid Middle East cultural taboos and stigma clearly played a part - Tech Crunch holds it up as something which AI could possibly prevent.

Earlier this year Zuckerberg wrote in a public post that “There have been terribly tragic events - like abortions, some live streamed - that perhaps could have been prevented if someone had realized what was happening and reported them sooner... Artificial intelligence can help provide a better approach.” And in a post yesterday announcing the new AI abortion prevention tool integration, he wrote that “In the future, AI will be able to understand more of the subtle nuances of language, and will be able to identify different issues beyond abortion as well, including quickly spotting more kinds of bullying and hate.”

Naturally, we must ask: what does Mark mean by the eerily ambiguous reference to "we will be able to identify different issues beyond abortion as well.."?

 

 

Julian Assange @JulianAssange

It begins. Facebook rolls out its first AI powered thought crime module. https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/27/facebook-ai-suicide-prevention/

8:06 PM - Nov 27, 2017

 

 

Facebook rolls out AI to detect suicidal posts before they’re…

This is software to save lives. Facebook’s new “proactive detection” artificial intelligence technology will scan all posts for patterns of abortion thoughts, and when necessary send mental…

techcrunch.com

 

382382 Replies

 

2,3392,339 Retweets

 

2,6192,619 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

With the debate already long raging about how "bullying and hate" gets interpreted and labelled, and with multiple high profile instances of such accusations being used to censor and limit constitutionally protected speech, Zuckerberg now "reassures" us that we can place such sensitive and highly interpretive questions in the hands of machines. Tech Crunch awkwardly tries to preempt such obvious (and horrifying) concerns while ultimately concluding "we have little choice" but to embrace it and "hope Facebook doesn't go too far":

The idea of Facebook proactively scanning the content of people’s posts could trigger some dystopian fears about how else the technology could be applied. Facebook didn’t have answers about how it would avoid scanning for political dissent or petty crime, with Rosen merely saying “we have an opportunity to help here so we’re going to invest in that.” There are certainly massive beneficial aspects about the technology, but it’s another space where we have little choice but to hope Facebook doesn’t go too far.

Unembarrassed by such an assertion, author Josh Cronstine further includes the following update: "Facebook’s chief security officer Alex Stamos responded to these concerns with a heartening tweet signaling that Facebook does take seriously responsible use of AI." And Cronstine follows with some not very "heartening" news - though his agenda is clearly to shove Facebook's social vision of a future benign AI monitoring technology which regulates and enforces social "norms" down the public's collective throat. It what itself sounds like a dystopian phrase worthy of Skynet, we are further told "you will not opt out!":

Unfortunately, after TechCrunch asked if there was a way for users to opt out, of having their posts a Facebook spokesperson responded that users cannot opt out. They noted that the feature is designed to enhance user safety, and that support resources offered by Facebook can be quickly dismissed if a user doesn’t want to see them.

And if this is not enough to turn the public's stomach, the glowing review ends by again reasserting Facebook's "responsibility" to implement its AI tools, as "Creating a ubiquitous global communication utility comes with responsibilities beyond those of most tech companies, which Facebook seems to be coming to terms with." Essentially, the familiar argument goes, the public should just "trust us" as this is for our "safety" and we are benign and humanitarian, says Facebook.

25 Jul

Darren Cunningham@dcunni

Zuckerberg blasts @elonmusk warnings against artificial intelligence as 'pretty irresponsible' https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/07/24/elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-risk-zuckerberg.html … @svbizjournal #ai

 

 

Elon Musk

✔@elonmusk

I've talked to Mark about this. His understanding of the subject is limited.

2:07 AM - Jul 25, 2017

1,3061,306 Replies

 

9,8199,819 Retweets

 

36,63436,634 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Ironically as Facebook continues to tout its claims of protecting democracy by taking steps to "ensure the integrity of elections" as Zuckerberg has frequently stated, it will now actively and openly pursue an AI regulated future which, as Elon Musk has personally warned Zuckerberg, will likely be the very source of tyranny and ultimate destruction of future humanity.

As Plato predicted nearly 2500 years ago, “We should expect tyranny to result from democracy, the most savage subjection from an excess of liberty" (Republic, Book VIII, 564 a).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any man of energy and initiative can get what he wants out of life. But when initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.

 

Andrew Mellon head the msg entered is too short

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Free people can treat each other justly, but they can't make life fair. To get rid of the unfairness among individuals, you have to exercise power over them. The more fairness you want, the more power you need. Thus, all dreams of fairness become dreams of tyranny in the end.

 

Andrew Klavan

 

 

All presidents but Jefferson have argued that their first job was to keep us safe. All presidents but Jefferson were wrong. If you read the Constitution, you will see that the President's first job - as Jefferson understood well - is to keep us free.

 

Andrew Napolitano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re:

Its Darwinian selection at its finest, and long may it continue

Zup, that’s cold - but firmly grounded.

 

Please note that post was ‘fake news’ at its worst. I substituted the word ‘abortion’ for every occurrence of ‘suicide’ in the original piece just to push buttons... and I guess the same 'selection' biz could be applied to suicide too...

 

I was having too much fun... The real point of the post is that FakeBook can have you locked up for your posted content

Should we trust pattern recognition to determine who gets hospitalized or arrested?

Pattern recognition is junk science

A 2010, CBS News article warns that pattern recognition and human behavior is junk science. The article shows, how companies use nine rules to convince law enforcement that pattern recognition is accurate.

A 2016, Forbes article used words like ‘nonsense, far-fetched, contrived and smoke and mirrors’ to describe pattern recognition and human behavior.

Cookie-cutter ratios, even if scientifically derived, do more harm than good. Every person is different. Engagement is an individual and unique phenomenon. We are not widgets, nor do we conform to widget formulas. (Source)

 

Who cares if pattern recognition is junk science right? At least Facebook is trying to save lives.

Wrong.

Using an A.I. to determine who might need to be hospitalized or incarcerated can and will be abused.

https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/facebooks-new-suicide-detection-put-innocent-people-behind-bars.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mind world gone to extremes

Because machines could be made progressively more and more efficient, Western man came to believe that men and societies would automatically register a corresponding moral and spiritual improvement. Attention and allegiance came to be paid, not to Eternity, but to the Utopian future. External circumstances came to be regarded as more important than states of mind about external circumstances, and the end of human life was held to be action, with contemplation as a means to that end. These false and historically, aberrant and heretical doctrines are now systematically taught in our schools and repeated, day in, day out, by those anonymous writers of advertising copy who, more than any other teachers, provide European and American adults with their current philosophy of life. And so effective has been the propaganda that even professing Christians accept the heresy unquestioningly and are quite unconscious of its complete incompatibility with their own or anybody else’s religion

Aldous_Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all agree that the world money system is on the right track, right?

All is well - as long as antarctica doesn't blow

This whole business of exchanging debt chits for debt chits is going to work out just fine.

The laws that obligate us to treat the Fed’s liabilities as if they were money benefits everyone the world over...

 

or maybe not...

Of Two Minds - The Cost Basis of our Economy is Spiraling Out of Control

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who owns the UFO narrative?

 

Would someone please help and advise me on how to participate in the latest wave of the ufo psyop?

 

I want to help analyze the metal from an alien ship

I want to study how they might spread biological ‘threats’

 

thanks

 

zdo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Year end just saying...

In fx, setting up for BO trades in 8 x’s on USD ( and a few correlates)

 

Still adding shorts to treasuries near/on the handles

 

Completely out of btc now...except for a couple btfd dabbles in zcoin, stratis, etc, trading ETH almost exclusively now

 

As noted, ‘hedge’ stop on CL longs trailing ~ 2.5 handles below CLG18

 

Short session this morning and done for the year in ndxs... 5 shorts in NQ, 2 in YM, 3 in ES ... all easy winners

 

(... and, while not these are not ‘trades’, most importantly - still moving from fiats to silver ....ion...)

 

Year end summary: It has been nice participating in the world’s greatest bubble in everything for all these years... just sayin

.

Wishing all TL members a wonderful and prosperous new year.

 

zdo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.