« First...102030...1,3671,3681,3691,3701,371...1,3801,3901,400...Last »

Why are we so scared of Artificial Intelligence development? – Open Access Government

Posted on by

The proliferation of technology throughout society has been rapid. As with any kind of societal shift, it has led to the excitement for the future and concern around new risks; particularly when it comes to job security. Indeed, academic institutions such as the University of Oxford suggesting that 47% of the current job market will be made obsolete due to rapid advancements in tech over the next 25 years have done nothing to calm public nerves.

Such staggering numbers are inevitably eye-catching, but not always helpful. Indeed, they tend to result in black hole baseless panic. As German philosopher Immanuel Kant suggested, it is within human nature to project things to infinity, regardless of the evidence.

Thankfully, a growing body of evidence indicates the future relationship between tech and humanity will be prosperous and peaceful. Thats partly because humans have some innate qualities that will be difficult for machines to ever replicate, meaning we will always be needed for the proper operation of society.

This view is supported by the experts; the World Economic Forum has predicted that whilst 75 million jobs could be lost to tech between 2020 and 2025, a further 133 million new roles will be created. These will be in the maintenance, management and oversight of the tech jobs, many of which are yet to be created

Pedros Domingos, a professor at the University of Washington and expert on the future relations between man and machine, suggests that AI will lead to the creation of roles that we cannot yet understand. After all, if you asked a person in the 1980s to describe the role of an app developer, theyd be uncertain. Indeed, this is the case for those of us today trying to imagine the world of work in 2030 or 2050 there are too many variables for us to make an effective prediction. One thing is sure: therell be new jobs for people to fill.

However, the new jobs created wont just be about creating and maintaining the new technology this will partially make up the job creation, of course, although newly carved human roles in the future workforce will involve working with machines.

This refers to how AI will be able to augment and complement, rather than replace, what humans are already able to do. A fantastic example comes from Prospex. This tech, developed by Fountech Ventures, is an AI program that can generate leads for salespeople. So, rather than spending hours manually trawling through databases to find business leads, the technology rapidly compiles lists of people to contact. As such, salespeople can focus on their passion, amplify their skills and delegate all of the drudgery to a machine.

Another example arrives from Autodesk, who have developed an AI program called Dreamcatcher. It too has a simple proposition: generating new designs based on assigned parameters. So, if you were designing a new table, youd input code for legs, tabletop, etc., and it then generates a multitude of options based on the designers preferences. The latter is then able to choose or amend a design as needed. So, we see human creativity flourish, thanks to collaboration with AI technology.

The future collaboration between man and machine will also be characterised by a more obvious aspect: the automation of repetitive tasks. For the millions of people worldwide who still work in factories, this might be a worrying prospect. However, the reality is more complex and, indeed, positive.

In fact, it will likely entail more fulfilling roles and the example of chatbots illustrates this point clearly. They are able to access vast amounts of data and are usually positioned at the beginning of the customer contact experience. Here, they answer questions and direct customers to call centres, where a specialised, human response can be given if needed. For the customer, it means a more efficient service. And for workers, it means dealing with more interesting issues rather than asking what is your customer reference? all day certainly a win-win.

John E. Kelly III, executive vice president at IBM asserted that, collaboratively, humans and machines working together always beat or make a better decision than a man or a machine independently and I agree. As long as experts treat this new technology with care, there will be no limit to what man and machine can collectively achieve.

Editor's Recommended Articles

More:
Why are we so scared of Artificial Intelligence development? - Open Access Government

Edward Snowden warns that Assange and Greenwald prosecutions mark new stage in assault on press freedom – World Socialist Web Site

Posted on by

Edward Snowden warns that Assange and Greenwald prosecutions mark new stage in assault on press freedom By Oscar Grenfell 30 January 2020

In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post on Sunday, National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that US charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and a Brazilian prosecution of Intercept journalist Glenn Greenwald are the spearhead of a campaign by governments around the world to abolish press freedom.

Calling for all supporters of democratic rights to rally to the defence of both Assange and Greenwald, Snowden wrote: The most essential journalism of every era is precisely that which a government attempts to silence. These prosecutions demonstrate that they are ready to stop the pressesif they can.

Snowdens voice carries the weight and authority of a courageous individual who risked everything to alert the population to government crimes. In 2013, Snowden revealed mass NSA spying on the American and world population, as well as on the political rivals of US imperialism, including its own formal allies, in violation of the US constitution and international law.

For these actions, he has been relentlessly hounded by the US government and its intelligence agencies. His successful flight to Russia and bid for political asylum was carried out with assistance from WikiLeaks.

Snowdens appeal comes at a crucial stage in the fight to free Assange. British court hearings for the WikiLeaks founders extradition to the US, where he faces Espionage Act charges and the prospect of life imprisonment, begin on February 24. If extradited, Assange would be prosecuted over his role in WikiLeaks publishing activities, including its exposures of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and human rights abuses at the US military prison at Guantnamo Bay.

The British judiciary, and all of the official political parties, have already greenlighted what can only be termed an extraordinary rendition operation. The US Department of Justice has made clear Assange would be denied the First Amendment protections for freedom of the press and free speech, despite the fact that he has been charged under domestic US law.

Glenn Greenwald was charged last week in Brazil with conspiracy and hacking offences for his role in exposing how Brazilian officials used an anti-corruption probe to railroad political opponents of the countrys fascistic president Jair Bolsonaro in the lead-up to the countrys 2018 national election. Snowden described the prosecution of Greenwald as a straightforward attempt to intimidate and retaliate against Greenwald and the Intercept for their critical reporting on the Brazilian government.

In his article, headlined Trump Has Created a Global Playbook to Attack Those Revealing Uncomfortable Truths, Snowden noted that this attack was a direct application of the Assange precedent.

The NSA whistleblower wrote: The legal theory used by the Brazilian prosecutorsthat journalists who publish leaked documents are engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the sources who provide those documentsis virtually identical to the one advanced in the Trump administrations indictment of [Assange] in a new application of the historically dubious Espionage Act.

The arrest and unveiling of a US indictment against Assange last year has also been followed by police raids against journalists in Australia, and threats by the French government to prosecute journalists for exposing its complicity in the Saudi-led war on Yemen.

The connection between the US attacks on Assange and Brazils move against Greenwald is likely even more direct. In comments this week, the Intercept journalist noted that the Bolsonaro government would not have initiated a prosecution without receiving the go-ahead from the Trump administration. The US State Department has said nothing about the charges against Greenwald. In other words, the same political forces are spearheading the persecution of both Assange and Greenwald.

Snowden pointed to the way in which the Trump administration has accelerated a protracted government assault on press freedom.

The NSA whistleblower commented that while former US President Barack Obama initiated the US-led vendetta against Assange, his administration did not publicly-unveil charges against the WikiLeaks founder over his publishing activities, for fear of triggering a constitutional crisis. Instead, the Obama administration used US allies, including Sweden and Britain, to concoct a sexual misconduct frame-up against Assange that was used to blacken his name and deprive him of his liberty.

The attempt to prosecute Greenwald similarly represented a rapid escalation, after an August 2019 order from a Brazilian Supreme Court judge banned the police from even investigating the journalist.

Snowdens article followed an opinion piece in the New York Times by Intercept reporter James Risen, who warned that the cases against Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald may be models for a crackdown. It noted that the charges against Greenwald were eerily similar to those contained in the US Espionage Act indictment of Assange.

Risen wrote: Both cases are based in part on a new prosecutorial conceptthat journalism can be proved to be a crime through a focus on interactions between reporters and their sources. Prosecutors are now scrutinizing the processes by which sources obtain classified or private information and then provide it to journalists. Since those interactions today are largely electronic, prosecutors are seeking to criminalize journalism by turning to anti-hacking laws to implicate reporters in the purported criminal activity of their sources in gaining access to data on computers or cellphones without authorization.

He noted that if this model were successful, it would provide the government with a detour around the First Amendment protections of the US constitution and would imperil journalists everywhere.

The publication of articles defending Assange in two of the largest daily newspapers in the US underscores the fears of the major media corporations that this campaign could disrupt their decades-long collaboration with governments and state authorities and their lucrative business models.

For years, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other mainstream publications have aided the assault on press freedom, including by repeating the official smears used to discredit Assange. Both publications promoted the bogus Swedish sexual-misconduct allegations against him.

The Times collaborated with Assange in 2010 on the very publications over which Assange has been charged. By 2011, however, they had thrown the WikiLeaks founder to the wolves and undermined his First Amendment protections by falsely claiming that he had functioned as a source and not a co-publisher.

Risens piece, even as it warned against the implications of Assanges persecution, gave succour to the unsubstantiated assertions of the Democratic Party and the intelligence agencies that he functioned as an agent of the Russian government in 2016.

In reality, WikiLeaks 2016 publications proved that the Democratic National Committee had sought to rig the Democratic Party primaries against Bernie Sanders in favour of Hillary Clinton, in violation of its own rules. They demonstrated that Clinton had promised multi-billionaire bankers that she would govern in their interests and support more predatory US military interventions.

Risen has long promoted the discredited Russiagate conspiracy theory, including by slandering Assange. This underscores the fact that there will be no genuine defence of the WikiLeaks founder, or of democratic rights, from the corporate press, which is thoroughly integrated into the state apparatus. It demonstrates that the fight to free Assange and all class war prisoners, and to defend Greenwald, requires the development of an independent political movement of the working class.

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

See the rest here:
Edward Snowden warns that Assange and Greenwald prosecutions mark new stage in assault on press freedom - World Socialist Web Site

Human rights report to oppose extradition of Julian Assange to US – The Guardian

Posted on by

Julian Assanges detention sets a dangerous precedent for journalists, according to politicians from the Council of Europes parliamentary arm, who voted on Tuesday to oppose the WikiLeaks founders extradition to the US.

The words of support for Assange and implicit criticism of the UK government will be contained in a final report produced by the Labour peer Lord Foulkes for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which focuses on upholding human rights across the continent.

Assange is being held in Londons Belmarsh prison prior to an extradition hearing that will begin in February. A US grand jury has indicted him on 18 charges 17 of which fall under the Espionage Act around conspiracy to receive, obtaining and disclosing classified diplomatic and military documents.

Foulkes had drafted an initial report Threats to Media Freedom and Journalists Security in Europe that will now contain amendments referring to Assange tabled by a number of European parliamentarians.

One of the amendments backs the recommendation of the UN special rapporteur on torture who called last year for Assanges release and for extradition to the United States to be blocked. The other states that his possible extradition to the US would set a precedent and threaten journalists freedoms in all member states.

Foulkes told the Guardian that campaigners and supporters of Assange had written to him while he was writing the report, which addresses media freedoms and threats to journalists in countries including Russia, Turkey and Malta, and asked that he consider including an amendment mentioning Assange.

As a rapporteur for the assembly, he said it was not his role to do so but that colleagues from other states had done so.

He added: I was in favour of him being sent back to Sweden when there were allegations against him to face, but as far as the US is concerned I think there would be deep concerns if he were to be sent there.

While the report is non-binding on the UK or on British courts, Assanges supporters are likely to cite it as a moral weight in their campaign to stop his extradition.

If convicted, Assange faces a prison term of up to 175 years.

View post:
Human rights report to oppose extradition of Julian Assange to US - The Guardian

Wikileaks Proved Maggie Haberman Is a Dem Operative and Her NYT ‘Expose’ Should Go in the Garbage | News and Politics – PJ Media

Posted on by

Maggie Haberman and her "bombshell" article in the New York Times about John Bolton's manuscript, and claims that he holds information that could convict the president, should be completely ignored or mocked for what it is: planted opposition strategy. It is an indisputable fact that Haberman was used by the Hillary Clinton campaign to "plant" stories favorable to Clinton in the press. John Podesta's hacked emails prove it. For those of you who have forgotten, here's what campaign staff said about Haberman. (Emphasis mine.)

As discussed on our call, we are all in agreement that the time is right place a story with a friendly journalist in the coming days that positions us a little more transparently while achieving the above goals.

Who: For something like this, especially in the absence of us teasing things out to others, we feel that it's important to go with what is safe and what has worked in the past, and to a publication that will reach industry people for recruitment purposes.

We have has [sic] a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed. While we should have a larger conversation in the near future about a broader strategy for reengaging the beat press that covers HRC, for this we think we can achieve our objective and do the most shaping by going to Maggie.

Democrats can do the "most shaping" of their narrative by going to Maggie. Isn't that special? Now, fast-forward to Haberman's latest "bombshell" about John Bolton's manuscript that was perfectly timed to disrupt the Senate impeachment hearings. The release of the allegations was maximized to cause the maximum upset and chaos possible right at the beginning of the Senate trial. Does anyone think that was an accident? Haberman is a literal known operative for the Democrat Party. She is the one they go to when they want a story "placed." Anyone using anything she writes for any purpose other than to line a birdcage or wrap fish should be ashamed of themselves.

Instead of being censured by the journalistic world for purposefully helping a presidential contender with her messaging instead of objectively reporting the news, Haberman won a Pulitzer! This is how Democrats work. They cheat, lie, and scheme and then they give awards to one another for doing it. Look for Haberman to be awarded again sometime soon for her role in this new charade.

If Republican senators don't point this out, they are missing an opportunity to expose how the Democrats work and the massive amount of manipulation and control that Democrats hold over the media.

Megan Fox is the author of Believe Evidence; The Death of Due Process from Salome to #MeToo, and host of The Fringe podcast. Follow on Twitter @MeganFoxWriter

Read this article:
Wikileaks Proved Maggie Haberman Is a Dem Operative and Her NYT 'Expose' Should Go in the Garbage | News and Politics - PJ Media

Will Someone Ask the Crowdstrike Question at the Impeachment Hearing, Please! – The Union Journal

Posted on by

In the last day of examining in the United States Senate impeachment hearings, there is one topic that is forgottenCrowdstrike This company apparently verified in June 2016 that the DNCs e-mails were hacked, as well as they were hacked by Russia.President Trump assumed it called for reference in his discussion with the recently chosen UkrainianPresident This is the prefer he asked.

The demand that President Trump made on his phone call to President Zelinsky in the Ukraine managed Crowdstrike, however nobody is touching this issue in the SenateHearings The President claimed:

The corrupt FBI as well as Mueller group declared that DNC e-mails launched by WikiLeaks prior to the 2016 political election were hacked by Russia, however neither entity evaluated the DNC web server which was apparently hacked. They gave no evidence of this.

The DNC rather employed a company Crowdstrike, with links to Mueller as well as previous Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, that gave a redacted record to the FBI as well as Mueller specifying the e-mails were hacked by Russia.

Former NSA whistleblower Bill Binney asserts he has proof the DNC e-mails were not hacked however replicated probably on a flashdrive or something comparable.

The days simply do not build up. In April 2016 George Papadopoulos was informed by the notorious Maltese teacher Joseph Mifsud that Russia had Hillarys e-mails.

But Crowdstrike really did not check out Hillarys e-mails till May 2016 when they in some way declared that the Russians had actually hacked right into the DNC. The timing does not build up.

WikiLeaks insurance claims to today that they did not get Hillarys e-mails via a state star.

Link:
Will Someone Ask the Crowdstrike Question at the Impeachment Hearing, Please! - The Union Journal

In the next war, soldiers will leave their smartphones at home – The Japan Times

Posted on by

LONDON As the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division departed for the Middle East amid rising tensions with Iran, their divisional commander gave a simple order. All personnel entering the region were told to leave smartphones and personal devices in the United States.

It was a clear sign of growing official nervousness over the potential vulnerability of items that had become an unquestioned fact of life for soldiers and civilians alike, but which Washington fears potential foes could track, exploit and use for targeting. Such concerns are far from new but were regarded less seriously when Americas primary enemies were seen as nonstate groups such as Islamic State, the Taliban and al-Qaida. Now Washington is worried about other nations not just Iran, but Russia and China which are seen as a much more existential threat.

It also points to a much greater trend. Across the board, the communications revolution and the vast sea of data it produces has made surveillance much easier, a trend likely to be magnified by the growth of artificial intelligence.

It has also facilitated the mass leaking of phenomenal amounts of information, as demonstrated by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. And simultaneously, it has overturned decades of tradecraft in espionage and associated fields, where despite the rise in fake news and online trickery, spy agencies like the CIA now reportedly find it almost impossible to maintain the multiple false identities on which they once relied.

The foundations of the business of espionage have been shattered, former CIA official Duyane Norman said in a Yahoo News report, which outlined how foreign governments have become much better at tracking real and covert U.S. identities through phone and bank records, facial recognition and even the records of off-the-shelf DNA tests. The debate (within the intelligence community) is like the one surrounding climate change. Anyone who says otherwise just isnt looking at the facts.

For military commanders, the options are also becoming limited. In Russias war with Ukraine, Moscows forces have shown remarkable skill in targeting counterparts on the battlefield as soon as they use their phones or radios. According to the U.S.-based Military Times, the U.S. Marine Corps already bans troops from taking personal devices on Middle East combat deployments. The U.S. Navy says it is reconsidering its rules, while the army says such decisions as with the 82nd Airborne are at the personal discretion of commanders.

Decisions are inevitably compromises. Taking away devices reduces the ability of personnel not just to talk to their families but can complicate communications and organization. However, concerns are growing fast. This month, the Pentagon also demanded personnel stop using the Chinese-owned TikTok application, with other similar platforms including WhatsApp also added to some blacklists.

Reducing careless talk and unnecessary radio and other emissions is hardly new. As far back as World War I, British commanders discovered telephone systems in forward trenches had often been compromised by German signalers and did everything they could to ensure the most sensitive messages were instead carried by hand or word of mouth. Naval vessels, military aircraft and particularly submarines have long done everything possible to mask their signatures, particularly near enemy territory. Recent years, however, have seen growing lapses, including from those who might have been expected to know better.

In early 2018, data released by fitness app Strava identified assorted U.S., Russian and even Iranian secret bases in Syria where military personnel and contractors appeared to have recorded their exercise runs without realizing they would be highlighted and widely shared. The U.S. military has now gone so far as to incorporate such mistakes into training exercises, killing off an entire unit in one drill after a soldier posted a selfie photo whose geo-tagging gave away their position.

Authorities are also nervous about nonaccidental releases of information. This November, White House and military staff removed smartphones from reporters and presidential aides for the duration of U.S. President Donald Trumps unannounced Thanksgiving trip to Afghanistan, which appeared as much about ensuring the news did not leak as worries the phones themselves might be tracked.

In terms of the latter, the greatest threat will come when artificial intelligence and voice recognition software reach the point where phones can be used to monitor nearby conversations without use of a human analyst or translator. That may come sooner rather than later one reason why some security experts are extremely nervous about Chinese firm Huawei being at the heart of 5G phone networks in several European countries, including Britain, which on Tuesday announced it will allow Huwei a limited role despite U.S. objections.

For authoritarian states like China and Iran, both witnessing a major spike in often smartphone-coordinated protest and unrest, being able to access and track electronic devices and the population at large is seen as a priority. Most notably in Xinjiang province but also across the country, Beijing is turning China into the most sophisticated surveillance state in human history. Within its borders, China already has considerable, sometimes almost exhaustive, access to data and devices. Faster and more incisive artificial intelligence and machine learning will dramatically extend that reach.

The question for Western states will be how effectively their potential foes can repurpose that technology to gather information outside their borders. The U.S. and its allies have become used to being able to use whatever devices and communications they wished since the Berlin Wall fell. Those days are ending fast.

Peter Apps is a writer on global affairs.

See the original post:
In the next war, soldiers will leave their smartphones at home - The Japan Times

Citing National Security, the Trump Administration Says John Bolton Can’t Publish His Book – Reason

Posted on by

The White House sent a threatening letter to former National Security Advisor John Bolton's attorneys declaring that his forthcoming book, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, is a threat to national security and cannot be published.

"Based on our preliminary review, the manuscript appears to contain significant amounts of classified information," wrote Ellen Knight, senior director for records at the National Security Council, in the letter to Bolton's attorneys. "The manuscript may not be published or disclosed without the deletion of this classified material."

The full letter was obtained by CNN's Jake Tapper:

Bolton has indicated that he would be willing to testify at the president's impeachment trial in the Senate, though it's currently unclear whether there are enough Republican senators who will vote to allow witnesses at all. Bolton may have information that is damaging to Trump's defense. As Reasonreported previously:

In a book that is soon to be released,Bolton saysthat Trump held up $391 million in congressional authorized security assistance from Ukraine so he could pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into announcing investigations that zeroed in on Trump's political rivals, namely former Vice President Joe Biden. In December,Trump was impeachedby the House on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in connection with the incident.

The Bolton allegations threw a wrench into the Senate trial as Republicans mull if they want to introduce witnesses and additional evidence after arguments conclude. Lawmakers will need a simple majority to hear new testimony, and Sens. Mitt Romney (RUtah) and Susan Collins (RMaine) have expressed that they will likely vote in favor.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) has emphasized the need for speedy proceedings and expressed his desire thatno witnesses be called.

Senate procedure is one matter. But regardless of whether Bolton is able to present his information at the trial, it's incredibly suspicious for the White House to seek to suppress the book itself. The administration should not be able to invoke the dreaded specter of "national security" every time someone is prepared to say something that might cause the government embarrassment. This is reminiscent of the efforts to stop whistleblower Edward Snowden from publishing his own book about the federal government's vast ability to spy on U.S. citizens. Knowing that it was unlikely the very power apparatus his book was criticizing would give him a fair shake, Snowden opted not to submit his manuscript for government review, which led a court to rule that the authorities could seize the book's profits.

There are, some legitimate secrets the government has an interest in protectingthe names of intelligence assets, for instanceand it's not wrong for the White House to review a former top advisor's book for inadvertent slips. But there's reason to be deeply skeptical that the White House's concerns are related to these actual, sensitive matters. The president himself recently characterized Bolton's potential testimony as a national security issue along the following lines:

"When [Bolton] knows my thoughts on certain people and other governments, and we're talking about massive trade deals and war and peace and all these different things that we talk about, that's really a very important national security problem," Trump told reporters in Davos, Switzerland.

Bolton knowing Trump's "thoughts on certain people and other governments" may be embarrassing for the administration, but it is not a rational basis upon which to censor him. Too often, national security is invoked to quell legitimate questions about government operations.

Readers should not be deprived of access to Bolton's book. They may end up rejecting its relevance, truthfulness, indictment of Trumpindeed, there are many good reasons to be skeptical of Bolton in generalbut that's for the American people to decide, not the national security state.

Go here to see the original:
Citing National Security, the Trump Administration Says John Bolton Can't Publish His Book - Reason

This tech firm used AI & machine learning to predict Coronavirus outbreak; warned people about danger zones – Economic Times

Posted on by

A couple of weeks after the Coronavirus outbreak and the disease has become a full-blown pandemic. According to official Chinese statistics, more than 130 people have died from the mysterious virus.

Contagious diseases may be diagnosed by men and women in face masks and lab coats, but warning signs of an epidemic can be detected by computer programmers sitting thousands of miles away. Around the tenth of January, news of a flu outbreak in Chinas Hubei province started making its way to mainstream media. It then spread to other parts of the country, and subsequently, overseas.

But the first to report of an impending biohazard was BlueDot, a Canadian firm that specializes in infectious disease surveillance. They predicted an impending outbreak of coronavirus on December 31 using an artificial intelligence-powered system that combs through animal and plant disease networks, news reports in vernacular websites, government documents, and other online sources to warn its clients against traveling to danger zones like Wuhan, much before foreign governments started issuing travel advisories.

They further used global airline ticketing data to correctly predict that the virus would spread to Seoul, Bangkok, Taipei, and Tokyo. Machine learning and natural language processing techniques were also employed to create models that process large amounts of data in real time. This includes airline ticketing data, news reports in 65 languages, animal and plant disease networks.

iStock

We know that governments may not be relied upon to provide information in a timely fashion. We can pick up news of possible outbreaks, little murmurs or forums or blogs of indications of some kind of unusual events going on, Kamran Khan, founder and CEO of BlueDot told a news magazine.

The death toll from the Coronavirus rose to 81 in China, with thousands of new cases registered each day. The government has extended the Lunar New Year holiday by three days to restrict the movement of people across the country, and thereby lower the chances of more people contracting the respiratory disease.

However, a lockdown of the affected area could be detrimental to public health, putting at risk the domestic population, even as medical supplies dwindle, causing much anger and resentment.

24 May, 2018

24 May, 2018

24 May, 2018

24 May, 2018

24 May, 2018

Originally posted here:
This tech firm used AI & machine learning to predict Coronavirus outbreak; warned people about danger zones - Economic Times

Why Unsupervised Machine Learning is the Future of Cybersecurity – TechNative

Posted on by

Not all Artificial Intelligence is created equal

As we move towards a future where we lean on cybersecurity much more in our daily lives, its important to be aware of the differences in the types of AI being used for network security.

Over the last decade, Machine Learning has made huge progress in technology with Supervised and Reinforcement learning, in everything from photo recognition to self-driving cars.

However, Supervised Learning is limited in its network security abilities like finding threats because it only looks for specifics that it has seen or labeled before, whereas Unsupervised Learning is constantly searching the network to find anomalies.

Machine Learning comes in a few forms: Supervised, Reinforcement, Unsupervised and Semi-Supervised (also known as Active Learning).

Supervised Learning relies on a process of labeling in order to understand information.

The machine learns from labeling lots of data and is able to recognize something only after someone, most likely a security professional, has already labeled it, as it can not do so on its own.

This is beneficial only when you know exactly what youre looking for, which is definitely not commonly the case in cybersecurity. Most often, hackers are using a method of attack that the security program has not seen before in which case a supervised system would be totally useless.

This is where Unsupervised Learning comes in. Unsupervised Learning draws inferences from datasets without labels. It is best used if you want to find patterns but dont know exactly what youre looking for.

This makes it useful in cybersecurity where the attacker is always changing methods. Its not looking for a specific label, but rather any pattern that is out of the norm will be flagged as dangerous, which is a much better method in a situation where the attacker is always changing forms.

Unsupervised Learning will first create a baseline for your network that shows what everything should look like on a regular day. This way, if some file transfer breaks the pattern of regular behavior by being too large or sent at an odd time, it will be flagged as possibly dangerous by the Unsupervised system.

A Supervised Learning program will miss an attack if it has never seen it before because it hasnt yet labeled that activity as dangerous, whereas with Unsupervised Learning security, the program only has to know that the action is abnormal in order to flag it as a potential threat.

There are two types of Unsupervised Learning: discriminative models and generative models. Discriminative models are only capable of telling you, if you give it X then the consequence is Y. Whereas the generative model can tell you the total probability that youre going to see X and Y at the same time.

So the difference is as follows: the discriminative model assigns labels to inputs, and has no predictive capability. If you gave it a different X that it has never seen before it cant tell what the Y is going to be because it simply hasnt learned that. With generative models, once you set it up and find the baseline you can give it any input and ask it for an answer. Thus, it has predictive ability for example it can generate a possible network behavior that has never been seen before.

So lets say some person sends a 30 megabyte file at noon, what is the probability that he would do that? If you asked a discriminative model whether this is normal, it would check to see if the person had ever sent such a file at noon before but only specifically at noon. Whereas a generative model would look at the context of the situation and check if they had ever sent a file like that at 11:59 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. too, and base its conclusions off of surrounding circumstances in order to be more accurate with its predictions.

The Artificial Intelligence that we are using at MixMode now is what is in the class of generative models in Unsupervised Learning, that basically gives it this predictive ability. It collects data to form a baseline of the network and will be able to predict what will happen over time because of its knowledge of what a day of the week looks like for the network.

If anything strays from this baseline, the platform will alert whichever security team oversees it that there has been an irregularity detected in network performance that should be adhering to the baseline standard.

For example, It collects data as it goes and then it says I know whats going to happen on monday at 9: People are going to come in and network volume will grow, then at noon they gonna go for lunch so the network level will drop a bit, then theyll continue working until six and go home and the network level will go down to the level it is during the night.

Because of its predictive power, the Generative Unsupervised learning model is capable of preventing Zero-Day attacks, which makes it the best security method out there and has the fastest response time to any breach.

Semi-Supervised or Active Learning takes the best of both unsupervised and supervised learning and puts them together in order to make predictions on how a network should behave.

Active learning starts with unsupervised learning by looking for any patterns on a network that deviate from the norm, then once it finds one it can label it as a threat, which is the supervised learning portion.

An active learning platform will be extremely useful because not only is it constantly scanning for any deviations on the network, but it is also constantly labeling and adding metadata to the abnormalities it does find which makes it a very strong detection and response system.

Featured image: Pablo Lagato

More:
Why Unsupervised Machine Learning is the Future of Cybersecurity - TechNative

Landis+Gyr’s Revelo Brings Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning to the Edge of the Grid – PRNewswire

Posted on by

ATLANTA, Jan. 29, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Landis+Gyr (Swiss: LAND.SW) is presenting the latest advancements in grid edge intelligence with the introduction of its Revelo metering platform at DISTRIBUTECH 2020 in San Antonio this week. With the Revelo release, Landis+Gyr is changing the way utilities visualize the quality of power delivery at the edge of the grid, enabling them to manage energy more proactively.

Combining edge computing with Landis+Gyr's proven grid metering technology for waveform data capture, Revelo enables utilities to develop real-time pattern recognition of energy delivery. Over time, machine learning in the meter will provide immediate feedback to quickly identify fault conditions and provide proactive safety alerts. Ultimately, this will support the growth and integration of otherwise disruptive distributed energy resources.

"Utilizing event recognition and pattern matching algorithms applied to high resolution metrology data from Revelo meters, it will be possible to both detect and categorize a variety of grid faults to quickly understand the cause and location. This is just one example of how sophisticated data sampling, combined with edge computing, can transform utility operations," said Tim Weidenbach, Chief Product Officer at Landis+Gyr.

To realize the full capability of the Revelo platform, Landis+Gyr has partnered with cutting-edge companies that are transforming how distribution systems are managed and how consumers are served with high-value, real-time energy management solutions. Over the past year, Landis+Gyr has been working with Utilidata and Sense to ensure Revelo has the data sampling, edge computation, and networking needed for grid and consumer-facing applications.

"The key to modernizing and optimizing the electric grid is to match intelligent hardware with innovative software," said Jess Melanson, President and COO of Utilidata. "Advanced metering must become a core operational platform to help manage an increasingly complex, decentralized, clean, and customer-centric grid. The Revelo platform has the advanced capabilities to make this a reality, enabling real-time, distributed data analysis, predictive modeling, and substation-to-meter optimization. We are thrilled to have teamed up with Landis+Gyr to make great strides towards realizing this future."

Sense CEO Mike Phillips commented, "We've found that the key to engaging consumers with energy is to give them a detailed, real-time view of what is going on in their home. This requires functionality that was not previously available on AMI meters, like high-resolution waveform data, significant edge computation, and low latency networking. These features are now available on the Revelo metering platform.

"We're excited that our partnership with Landis+Gyr has created a path for us to provide our software solutions for this next generation of utility meters, providing the full Sense consumer experience with no need for additional hardware in the home," Phillips concluded.

Visit Landis+Gyr at DISTRIBUTECH at Booth #2633 in the Expo to hear more about this game-changing technology and how it will help your utility cope with the exciting challenges of the future grid.

About Landis+GyrLandis+Gyr is the leading global provider of integrated energy management solutions for the utility sector. Offering one of the broadest portfolios, we deliver innovative and flexible solutions to help utilities solve their complex challenges in smart metering, grid edge intelligence and smart infrastructure. With sales of USD 1.8 billion, Landis+Gyr employs approximately 5,600 people in over 30 countries across five continents, with the sole mission of helping the world manage energy better.

More information is available atwww.landisgyr.com.

About Utilidata, IncUtilidata, Inc., an energy software company backed by leading venture capital firms, is the industry leader in energy grid optimization. The company's patented technology captures real-time signals from the electric grid and provides actionable insights to save energy, integrate distributed energy resources, and better detect grid anomalies. The company is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. For more information, please visit http://www.utilidata.com (http://www.utilidata.com) or follow @Utilidata on Twitter.

About Sense Sense's mission is to make all homes intelligent by keeping people informed about what's happening in their homes, and helping to make them safer, more efficient, and more reliable. Founded in 2013 by pioneers in speech recognition, Sense uses machine learning technology to provide real-time insights on device behavior, even for those devices that are not "smart." Customers rely on Sense for a wide range of uses including checking what time their kids get home, monitoring their home appliances, determining whether they left appliances running or doors open and identifying how to reduce their energy costs. Sense is headquartered in Cambridge, Mass. To make sense of your energy, visit: https://sense.com.

SOURCE Landis+Gyr

https://www.landisgyr.com

More:
Landis+Gyr's Revelo Brings Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning to the Edge of the Grid - PRNewswire


« First...102030...1,3671,3681,3691,3701,371...1,3801,3901,400...Last »