Gaywallet (they/it) @ Gaywallet @beehaw.org

I'm gay

---

Read more

Posts

213

Comments

765

Joined

3 yr. ago

Moderating

---

adorable

Finally picked up ghost of tsushima and started playing through it. Reminds me of RDR2

When you abstract out pieces of the puzzle, it's easier to ignore whether all parts of the puzzle are working because you've eliminated the necessary interchange of information between parties involved in the process. This is a problem that we frequently run into in the medical field and even in a highly collaborative field like medicine we still screw it up all the time.

In the previous process, intelligence officers were involved in multiple steps here to validate whether someone was a target, validate information about the target, and so on. When you let a machine do it, and shift the burden from these intelligence officers to someone without the same skill set who's only task is to review information given to them by a source which they are told is competent and their role is to click yes/no, you lose the connection between this step and the next.

The same could be said, for example, about someone who has the technical proficiency to create new records, new sheets, new displays, etc. in an electronic health record. A particular doctor might come and request a new page to make their workflow easier. Without appropriate governance in place and people who's job is to observe the entire process, you can end up with issues where every doctor creates their own custom sheet, and now all of their patient information is siloed to each doctors workflow. Downstream processes such as the patient coming back to the same healthcare system, or the patient going to get a prescription, or the patient being sent to imaging or pathology or labs could then be compromised by this short-sighted approach.

For fields like the military which perhaps are not used to this kind of collaborative work, I can see how segmenting a workflow into individual units to increase the speed or efficiency of each step could seem like a way to make things much better, because there is no focus on the quality of what is output. This kind of misstep is extremely common in the application of AI because it often is put in where there are bottlenecks. As stated in the article-

“We [humans] cannot process so much information. It doesn’t matter how many people you have tasked to produce targets during the war — you still cannot produce enough targets per day.”

the goal here is purely to optimize for capacity, how many targets you can generate per day, rather than on a combination of both quality and capacity. You want a lot of targets? I can just spit out the name of every resident in your country in a very short period of time. The quality in this case (how likely they are to be a member of hamas) will unfortunately be very low.

The reason it's so fucked up is that a lot of it is abstracted yet another level away from the decision makers. Ultimately it is the AI that's making the decision, they are merely signing off on it. And they weren't involved in signing off on the AI, so why should they question it? It's a dangerous road - one where it becomes increasingly easy to allow mistakes to happen, except in this case the mistake can be counted as innocent lives that you killed.

They were going to kill these people whether an AI was involved or not, but it certainly makes it a lot easier to make a decision when you're just signing off on a decision someone else made. The level of abstraction made certain choices easier. After all, if the system is known to be occasionally wrong and everyone seems to know it yet you're still using it, is that not some kind of implicit acceptance?

One source stated that human personnel often served only as a “rubber stamp” for the machine’s decisions, adding that, normally, they would personally devote only about “20 seconds” to each target before authorizing a bombing — just to make sure the Lavender-marked target is male. This was despite knowing that the system makes what are regarded as “errors” in approximately 10 percent of cases, and is known to occasionally mark individuals who have merely a loose connection to militant groups, or no connection at all.

It also doesn't surprise me that when you've demonized the opposition, it becomes a lot easier to just be okay with "casualties" which have nothing to do with your war. How many problematic fathers out there are practically disowned by their children for their shitty beliefs? Even if there were none, it still doesn't justify killing someone at home because it's 'easier'

Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses. Additional automated systems, including one called “Where’s Daddy?” also revealed here for the first time, were used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.

All in all this is great investigative reporting, and it's absolutely tragic that this kind of shit is happening in the world. This piece isn't needed to recognize that a genocide is happening and it shouldn't detract from the genocide in any way.

As an aside, I also help it might get people to wake up and realize we need to regulate AI more. Not that regulation will probably ever stop the military from using AI, but this kind of use should really highlight the potential dangers.

Went to a bunch of shows last weekend. Of note, Saturday night was amazing, I got to see 2 good friends DJ at one venue and then when they finished we made our way out to the forest rave to see another friend spin. A recent first date (three days prior) mentioned they didn't get out enough so I invited them to come, and despite having never been to a rave they showed up! We ended up staying at the forest all night long. It's the first time in years I've truly pulled an all nighter on purpose and not due to bad insomnia and it was wonderful and magical in all the right ways. I'm not certain whether it left me sick (I was feeling worse yesterday) or my body is just still recovering, but it was completely worth it.

Popping in because this comment got reported- a reminder to you and everyone in this thread to do your best to be nice to each other. If you're getting heated or exhausted over this discussion it might be a good idea to step away. 💜

Alt text: A picture of an older smiling white man with long curly white hair is holding his jacket open, revealing a vest, tie and a gold medal around his neck. The text reads: In 2013, Brian May of Queen bought 157 acres of land that was about to be developed into buildings. He planted trees with the help of volunteers and restored it into a thriving woodland. The area is called "May's Woodland" and has over 100,000 trees growing there.

If there's anything that's not in the survey that you'd like to discuss, please leave a comment!

Could the low effort comments, indicate a criticism of the article selection itself?

If we create a culture in which those who are upset about "question headline article" enter these threads to vent their frustration through low effort comments, it's not necessarily a criticism so much as it is a culture we've created. Think about what kind of content does well on Reddit or Twitter - often times people are engaging in a way because they know the community will respond in a way and they're looking for that particular kind of validation or engagement.

We need to take a step back from time to time and think about what we're encouraging and whether that's helpful. If you are uninterested in interacting with "question headline article" than simply don't. If many people share your opinion and don't want to interact with these threads, they'll die off and not get engagement and discussion whereas articles which don't suffer from the same problem will have active and healthy discussions.

Not every discussion is for you, and that's okay, but engaging with content in a way that can be easily seen as negative is generally not helpful. In fact, it's a lot worse than "not helpful" - we talk quite a bit about how we want to have an explicitly nice space and how nice spaces evaporate quickly in the face of behavior like this. There's a good deal of nice people who don't like being told "law of headlines, no" and will quickly leave the space if that's the kind of engagement they see. In order to encourage these kinds of people to stick around, we need to be careful about when we choose to criticize them.

I understand that you care a lot about whether a headline is reflective of the content and are triggered easily by headlines which are clickbait-y. But this isn't a sentiment shared by everyone and some of the people who don't share that sentiment are great people with lots to offer to this community. They may simply not have the time or the energy to correct what the author did, and are simply excited or happy to share an article they found interesting and aren't as easily triggered by poor quality headlines. They might be doing so because they're particularly interested in some insights and want to share in the joy of those insights with others. Or they may want to spur a discussion on which is elaborated upon within the article. The hyperfocus on the title and how it's presented and leaving an ultimately negative comment which discourages discussion and can leave the poster disheartened is not helpful to creating a nice environment.

To be clear this was not meant as a criticism of you, specifically. I'm simply asking that we collectively stop this kind of behavior in general on this instance, for the reasons I outlined. If there is still a desire to criticize, that we do so in a way that is not simply stating the 'law of headlines; no', as that's something that I've seen happen on Beehaw dozens of times.

If you're interested in getting to know more about this polarizing and interesting figure, I also really enjoyed the interviews with him by Andrew Callaghan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwdkng6ZGp8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-8kL04Tvfs

She tried to paint ACOs as the brainchild of UHG specifically, as a means to extract wealth from an existing system. That ignores the current state of ACOs and the many which are able to reduce overall healthcare costs and in many cases reduce administrative costs. Yes, the US healthcare system is broken. Yes, it's very simple to view this as a "band aid on a fundamentally flawed system" and yes, there's still room for "corruption to continue". None of that is in conflict with what I stated. I merely took issue with the framing that UHG is responsible for the creation of ACOs and VBC as that's just factually incorrect, and it suggests the framing that ACOs are not providing any value to the system or being useful in any way- this is contradicted in the article I linked as well as plenty of other published literature by organizations which are notably not UHG.

As a community, can we please stop this behavior? This isn't an article, but even if it was an article, rushing to be the first person to leave a "gotcha"-style message doesn't encourage a conversation. If you have an issue with a headline, it takes a trivial amount of time to explain what, specifically about the headline could be improved or wording that is more relevant to content that the author is presenting. You can also easily start a conversation about why sensationalizing the headline is damaging to individuals. By just pointing at wikipedia, or an xkcd, or leaving a comment like this, we're encouraging reddit and twitter style vapid interactions which consist of who can make the best joke or flame the person who posted it the soonest.

This doesn't promote a nice environment, when every article is met with "LAW OF HEADLINES, NO". It's exhausting to see. In most cases the person sharing the article isn't who wrote the article, so they aren't actually in control of writing it. Yes, they can choose new words to put into their post, but this platform auto-populates most links with the headline from the article, and also focusing on the headline draws attention away from the article itself and any useful or fruitful discussion that can happen as a result of discussing the content, rather than the often <.05% of the content of the article that the headline constitutes.

Explaining what an ACO and what VBC are is far outside the scope of the educational burden I'm willing to take on. Instead, have some links:

• Here's a high level review article on accountable care organizations in the United States.
• Here's a high level review article on value based care and what it includes in the United States.

I'm not sure how to answer your question in a manner which doesn't touch on the same points the author brings forward. Was something they said unclear or are there parts of my comment which you'd like me to elaborate upon?

Accountable care organization. VBC = value based care.

You can also very easily run the bridges yourself if you don’t trust them. I do so in my homelab, it was 10 minutes of work setting it all up. Super stable, and e2e from my side.

Do you have a guide or list of links?

But a lot of this is simply board members and C-Suite not allocating enough dollars for proper hardware, software, and strongly knowledgeable minds to implement good security.

The stolen data was encrypted, so all the hackers were doing was stopping business from being run. With that being said, if you think it's just about 'implementing good security' I think you're out of depth when it comes to just how large of an attack vector it is and how sophisticated the attacks can be. We're talking about an industry where people are willing to cough up millions of dollars to recover data in some cases, meaning that it attracts some of the best talent in the world to coordinate attacks and the attacks can be extremely sophisticated.

To me it sounded like they were saying ACO and VBC are both bad. In fact, it kinda felt like they were attributing their creation to UHG as some kinda malicious moneymaking scheme.