Here is a tweet describing a problem with social media recommendation systems:
"The algorithm I worked on at Google recommended Alex Jones' videos
more than 15,000,000,000 times, to some of the most vulnerable people
in the nation." - @gchaslot
What should the penalty for that be? A fine? Enough for the Foundation
to hire all my Google Summer of Code students to add pronunciation
remediation to Wiktionary?
If you think that's bad, most of the recommendation system damage is
from the vanity of fame instead of political schemers. Almost all of
the post-Myspace social media had a bias towards usually undeserved
fame. Luckily, the damage is merely memetic and can be repaired with
literature. But the schemers turn into fraud cases, so they get more
attention than they should relative to the larger, general problem.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:27 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here is a good example of instructional software to
solve a systemic
How can we sustain progress towards resolution of the issues?
Also, does the date by which Titan is likely to be colonized correlate
with the extent to which progress has been achieved? This is not the
first time I have asked this question here, and I hope the answer is
as clear to everyone else as it is to me: it correlates inversely.
I wonder if the Foundation could afford to have David Attenborough
narrate the interaction between Cambridge Analytica and Cambridge
University. They would if they'd start investing in unskimmable
endowment funds. Make donors' money work hard, with a screening for
Bring back the regular email to donors suggesting other organizations
worthy of their money, and tell them how to avoid being skimmed by
high frequency traders, too, please.