The Need for Trustworthy AI

If you ask Alexa, Amazon’s voice assistant AI system, whether Amazon is a monopoly, it responds by saying it doesn’t know. It doesn’t take much to make it lambaste the other tech giants, but it’s silent about its own corporate parent’s misdeeds.

When Alexa responds in this way, it’s obvious that it is putting its developer’s interests ahead of yours. Usually, though, it’s not so obvious whom an AI system is serving. To avoid being exploited by these systems, people will need to learn to approach AI skeptically. That means deliberately constructing the input you give it and thinking critically about its output.

Newer generations of AI models, with their more sophisticated and less rote responses, are making it harder to tell who benefits when they speak. Internet companies’ manipulating what you see to serve their own interests is nothing new. Google’s search results and your Facebook feed are filled with paid entries. Facebook, TikTok and others manipulate your feeds to maximize the time you spend on the platform, which means more ad views, over your well-being.

What distinguishes AI systems from these other internet services is how interactive they are, and how these interactions will increasingly become like relationships. It doesn’t take much extrapolation from today’s technologies to envision AIs that will plan trips for you, negotiate on your behalf or act as therapists and life coaches.

They are likely to be with you 24/7, know you intimately, and be able to anticipate your needs. This kind of conversational interface to the vast network of services and resources on the web is within the capabilities of existing generative AIs like ChatGPT. They are on track to become personalized digital assistants.

As a security expert and data scientist, we believe that people who come to rely on these AIs will have to trust them implicitly to navigate daily life. That means they will need to be sure the AIs aren’t secretly working for someone else. Across the internet, devices and services that seem to work for you already secretly work against you. Smart TVs spy on you. Phone apps collect and sell your data. Many apps and websites manipulate you through dark patterns, design elements that deliberately mislead, coerce or deceive website visitors. This is surveillance capitalism, and AI is shaping up to be part of it.

Quite possibly, it could be much worse with AI. For that AI digital assistant to be truly useful, it will have to really know you. Better than your phone knows you. Better than Google search knows you. Better, perhaps, than your close friends, intimate partners and therapist know you.

You have no reason to trust today’s leading generative AI tools. Leave aside the hallucinations, the made-up “facts” that GPT and other large language models produce. We expect those will be largely cleaned up as the technology improves over the next few years.

But you don’t know how the AIs are configured: how they’ve been trained, what information they’ve been given, and what instructions they’ve been commanded to follow. For example, researchers uncovered the secret rules that govern the Microsoft Bing chatbot’s behavior. They’re largely benign but can change at any time.

Many of these AIs are created and trained at enormous expense by some of the largest tech monopolies. They’re being offered to people to use free of charge, or at very low cost. These companies will need to monetize them somehow. And, as with the rest of the internet, that somehow is likely to include surveillance and manipulation.

Imagine asking your chatbot to plan your next vacation. Did it choose a particular airline or hotel chain or restaurant because it was the best for you or because its maker got a kickback from the businesses? As with paid results in Google search, newsfeed ads on Facebook and paid placements on Amazon queries, these paid influences are likely to get more surreptitious over time.

If you’re asking your chatbot for political information, are the results skewed by the politics of the corporation that owns the chatbot? Or the candidate who paid it the most money? Or even the views of the demographic of the people whose data was used in training the model? Is your AI agent secretly a double agent? Right now, there is no way to know.

We believe that people should expect more from the technology and that tech companies and AIs can become more trustworthy. The European Union’s proposed AI Act takes some important steps, requiring transparency about the data used to train AI models, mitigation for potential bias, disclosure of foreseeable risks and reporting on industry standard tests.

Most existing AIs fail to comply with this emerging European mandate, and, despite recent prodding from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the US is far behind on such regulation.

The AIs of the future should be trustworthy. Unless and until the government delivers robust consumer protections for AI products, people will be on their own to guess at the potential risks and biases of AI, and to mitigate their worst effects on people’s experiences with them.

So when you get a travel recommendation or political information from an AI tool, approach it with the same skeptical eye you would a billboard ad or a campaign volunteer. For all its technological wizardry, the AI tool may be little more than the same.

This essay was written with Nathan Sanders, and previously appeared on The Conversation.

Posted on August 3, 2023 at 7:17 AM60 Comments

Comments

Winter August 3, 2023 10:33 AM

@Modem, all

around the theme of caution against human mental atrophy in the computer era.

Everything changes, everything stays the same. All this was true of writing and the printing press. What was written was not the truth but the words that suited the powerful. But in the end it is writing that brings them down, who lives by the pen, dies by the pen. 😉

From Plato’s Phaedrus:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1636/1636-h/1636-h.htm

But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

(emphasis mine)

Clive Robinson August 3, 2023 10:52 AM

@ Bruce, ALL,

“… people who come to rely on these AIs will have to trust them implicitly to navigate daily life. That means they will need to be sure the AIs aren’t secretly working for someone else.”

The obviois answer to the first proposition is “Do not use AIs”.

The second proposition is rather more difficult, in fact arguably it can not be done.

The simple way of looking at it is,

“You are not a murderer till you’ve murdered someone”.

A mistake humans make because it appears builtin genetically is,

“To trust without reason”

The fact someone has not murdered someone does not mean that they won’t murder you in the future.

The problem is how can you know before they do murder you or someone else, that they can and will commit murder. We like to fool ourselves that this is possible, when infact the number of people that get murdered every year strongly suggests otherwise.

It’s the same with trust and betrayal, we like to think we would know if someone is going to beyray us, but the recorded facts strongly suggest otherwise.

So how do you ensure,

“The AIs aren’t secretly working for someone else.”

Well there may be one way.

Betrayal or breach of trust needs “a partner in crime”, or “third party”.

If the AI as the “second party” never gets contact with the “third party” then they can not betray you the “first party” to the “third party”.

The problem is that there is a mantra that goes around about “communications is why computers are usefull”. Whilst not entirely true, there is a strong case to be made that a computers utillity to an individual goes up with the communications the computer has.

In effect it’s “a computer as a proxie” argument, it takes the effort out of communications thus broadens your scope of communications (on the assumption that all communications links have some utility).

The point to realise is that even if 100% true, you don’t need to limit yourself to a single computer or AI.

If you use several AIs and arange them in an appeopriate way you can ensure that no third party has communications with all your AIs.

Thus you can in effect use the old “If I ask that guard to point to the dangerous door to which will he point”, you get told the safe door[1]. Or use a similar logic based system even just a voting protocol.

The hard part though would be training the AI’s as you would need as many fully independent training sets as you have AI’s.

[1] The origin of this question is oft debated more than the answer. However it’s certainly older than Alice would be. Some argue it goes back to the well known Cretan Epimenides, who made the now immortal “paradox statement” of, “All Cretans are liars.”

JonKnowsNothing August 3, 2023 11:17 AM

@modem phonemes

re: boycott by decree

HAIL Warning

A MSM article describes how China is setting limits for minors access of smartphone apps to 2 hours per day.

  • The rules proposed by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) will require device makers, operating systems, apps and app stores to introduce a so-called “minor-mode” capping time spent on screen
  • minor mode on would also make the device mostly unusable between 10pm and 6am, with only emergency calls and approved apps working.

We know that bypassing a usage restriction on the device is easy enough, harder to do when it’s managed by the app-maker, but still doable (multiple accounts). China is no stranger to how to manage this aspect of simple redirection and has the capability to do so.

However, a fair few number of adults would like to block the never ending 24×7 demand pings from employers too.

Per the MSM, the expected loss of potentially 22 hrs of eyeball-time has jolted some app makers badly.

===

ht tps://www.theguardian.c o m/business/2023/aug/03/chinese-plans-to-limit-smartphone-use-for-children-hit-tech-shares

(url fractured)

Winter August 3, 2023 12:52 PM

@Clive

The fact someone has not murdered someone does not mean that they won’t murder you in the future.

So, everyone is a potential criminal? Given that circumstances make the criminal that is both true and meaningless.

For everyone, there are circumstances that would induce them to commit a crime, and for every criminal, there are circumstances that would have prevented them from becoming a criminal.

Not using AI is as pointless as not talking to people, not using writing, not reading publications, or not using a phone, TV, or computer, or not using the internet for that matter.

Like writing and printing pressed, the only same way is to learn how to use them to your benefits. If you do not trust a newspaper, look for one you can trust, or compare notes. Same with AI.

But for a nation that has to choose between Fox News and CNN, what do you expect?

JonKnowsNothing August 3, 2023 1:39 PM

@Winter, @Clive, All

  1. re: So, everyone is a potential criminal?

Yes. This is the viewpoint of all 3Ls and LEAs on the planet. It is the justification for the definition of “relevant” to mean “all”. Because the 3Ls+LEAs won’t know if you have become a criminal de jure until they find something de facto. It’s the You Never Know principle.

  1. re: Not using AI is as pointless as not talking to people

There is a big difference between technology and humans. On screen, audio, in print I may not be able to tell HAIL from a hole in the wall but Face to Face with a human it’s no contest. Even my pets talk to me and I know what my pet wants – I am well trained.

  1. re: HAIL is cold

There is nothing safe as far as “verifiable” content anymore. Everything has a HAIL potential. With Deepfakes there may be the remnants of the unaltered image. (1) With HAIL you cannot find any aspect that is verifiable. It’s all circular reasoned. HAIL involves the imaginary mixed in with everything. Like a Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Fiction story, it has elements of truth or real events, but even great Sci-Fi/Fantasy stories give a clue when flying dragons appear ’cause someone has to muck the stable. (2)

Me thinks that someone’s paycheck is depending on the outcome of AI adoption and is fighting a mighty battle to wave a victory flag.

===

1) HAIL a MSM report about an unflattering image of UK PM pouring beer at a festival. 2 images; an original and the fake.

ht tps://www.theguardian.c om/politics/2023/aug/02/labour-mp-criticised-for-sharing-doctored-image-of-rishi-sunak

2) Magyk: Septimus Heap series Angie Sage

(url fractured)

Winter August 3, 2023 2:38 PM

@JonKnowsNothing

There is nothing safe as far as “verifiable” content anymore.

There never was content that was true without some person vouching for it.

There was a time people believed things to be true because they were written [1], painted, printed, photographed, or filmed. There are still people who believe something to be the literal truth because it is printed in some book.

[1] Humanists had to put in great effort to get people to realize the Iliad was not a literally true account of history.

Ted August 3, 2023 2:43 PM

I found a good AI-focused podcast the other day called ‘MLSecOps.’

https://mlsecops.com/what-is-mlsecops

They had a June episode with NIST’s Research Team Supervisor, Apostol Vassilev.

The transcript mentions various projects, one being NIST’s “Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework” released in Jan 2023.

Section 3 of the framework covers “AI Risks and Trustworthiness.”

Subsection 3.4 covers a characteristic defined as Accountable and Transparent. From that subsection:

A transparent system is not necessarily an accurate, privacy-enhanced, secure, or fair system…

When consequences are severe, such as when life and liberty are at stake, AI developers and deployers should consider proportionally and proactively adjusting their transparency and accountability practices.

I don’t know that all AI chatbots or tools rise to this standard, but I hope such frameworks are increasingly explored and considered.

pdh August 3, 2023 3:26 PM

“when you get a travel recommendation or political information from an AI tool…”

Maybe don’t use AI tools for those kinds of things? Or if you do, check with multiple tools and compare the results?

JonKnowsNothing August 3, 2023 4:54 PM

@Winter, @Clive, All

The primary problem with AI/LLM HAIL is that it is 100% fiction masquerading as nonfiction.

  • Fiction = Literary type using invented or imaginative writing, instead of real facts.
  • Nonfiction = Written works intended to give facts, or true accounts of real things and events.

If I want fiction: I read books, newspapers, watch movies or entertainment.

If I want nonfiction: I read books by acknowledged experts, science papers presented by vetted sources, watch documentaries or view science journals.

There is a cross-over but fiction comes with a disclaimer (1)

  • All names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious.

The disclaimer is what the “watermark” proponents want to have attached to all AI output. It is also what the AI industry does not want to attach to all their output.

It doesn’t take a great deal of dot-connecting to understand that if the AI output is labeled for what it is (a fiction) then it’s value for impacting laws, court cases, policing, national security, science is severely hampered.

It isn’t that those entities cannot make up their own HAIL on demand, ~50,000 US Soldiers lost their lives over a fake picture, a fake incident and false testimony.

The fundamental problem is that it makes all future discoveries, future advancements NULL from the get go. And this is far more chilling than whether the AI can dish up a decent paragraph. It puts a stopper back in the bottle of technical and science discovery. There will be no baseline on any topic untouched from which one can measure outcome(s). Such a thing has never been possible before but it is now.

When fantasy overtakes all of real knowledge, why Dragon Poop is all that is left.

===

ht tps://en.wikipedia.o r g/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer

  • The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

(url fractured)

Clive Robinson August 3, 2023 6:12 PM

@ Winter,

“So, everyone is a potential criminal? Given that circumstances make the criminal that is both true and meaningless.”

Err your logic is at best faulty.

Firstly, within physical reason any person can commit an act. It is a given, and I would have thought incontrovertible to most reasond debate. Likewise if someone uses a force multiplier anything within the force multipliers physical limits is possible.

So the fact an act is possible is not in question unless there is some physical limitation or impediment.

So the question of if an act is a crime or not is not a subject of individuals capabilities or physical limits. It is actually a matter of oppinion by observers at the time of the act and subsequently based on testable information we chose to call evidence. It is what is behind the act that gets called into question within societies current mores, morals, ethics, regulation and litigation. Thus what was not a crime yesterday, maybe tommorow and likewise what was a crime yesterday may not be today as a matter of legislation and regulation change/flux.

You apparently do not understand this, which is odd, as it is the fundemental basis of most justice systems in the West.

In particular society as represented by the observer and test process judges the “Directing mind” behind the act. So they first have to identify the directing mind, then test to decide if the mind had various forms of intent or choice in the act. Then if they are within what society judges as just, reasonable etc or not.

Your ambiguous use of “circumstances” suggests you are trying to reason backwards. That is you’ve made an emotional choice for argument for what ever reason and are trying to argue it back to what might appear a reasonable hypothesis.

It’s not, as others have noted.

So it’s pointless carrying on with an argument you’ve lost through your own poor choices.

So moving on,

“Not using AI is as pointless as not talking to people, not using writing, not reading publications, or not using a phone, TV, or computer, or not using the internet for that matter.”

Again it’s an unsupportable series of arguments.

AI is a tool, that is a force multiplier. The question as to use falls into the capability to do harm immediately, in the short term and in the long term.

On your reasoning I could argue that we should be using handgrenades rather than shovels to dig up a road. Heavy machine guns to demolish buildings, and nuclear devices to go mining and tunnelling.

I suspect most would disagree with those usage cases because of the potential harms. Even though all the cases are actually practical and in some cases “well proven”.

So what harms do AIs represent is a sensible question.

Well we know they are currently without “physical agency” which limits their direct harms.

However they can be used as “influencers” to cause those with agency to act on their instructions.

Thus they do have the potential to cause direct physical/kinetic harms if we do not put safe guards in place.

You might have noticed that currently we are finding out we can not put “hand-rails around AI”… That is so far every attempt to limit how AI can be used to create “influence” has faild either fully or to such an extent that the protections are near pointless.

This does not in the least supprise me. Because if you assume that there actually is no “intelligence” in these AI LLMs as I do, you can see them for what they are which is a tool to be used.

Thus the reason the hand-rails fail is it’s nothing to do with the technology as such, just the age old battle between one group of humans and another group in an “Attacker- defender scenario”.

It’s like a game of football, only the difference is the hype has stopped to many realising it’s just a game. Thus the hype is giving the use of LLMs actuall agency.

If I suggested that two nations played football and that for every goal scored a city would get nuked to the ground, you would think I would need to be carted off to a padded cell?

But if you analyze the hype, that is in effect “the end game” some envision for AI LLMs… Unfortunately some of them possess the resources to give LLM systems the agency.

So my vote is untill we can explain how LLMs work or more correctly can and are being used to abuse people and create very real harm for “political mantra” then maybe we should cut back on not just the hype, but also any kind of agency we give them either directly or indirectly.

As importantly, we need to start considering the “crimes” of AI LLM usage and how we judge and punnish the directing minds behind the misuse of LLMs and other AI that we are already aware of.

But also we need to ask,

“What benifit do AI LLMs give?”

The answer appears to be so far,

“Very little.”

This is mostly because of the,

“Hyped up expectations.”

That no LLMs in any form we currently recognise wil be able to deliver on ever… Remember they have no more inteligence than you would find in a tumbler full of dice driving a 1980’s “Expert System” / “joke psychoanalyst”, in fact if truth be told, a good deal less.

modem phonemes August 3, 2023 9:06 PM

@ Clive Robinson

Well we know they are currently without “physical agency” which limits their direct harms.

It seems LLMs are already combined with and enabling physical agency –

“ For example, Google says that RT-2 can allow a robot to recognize and throw away trash without having been specifically trained to do so. It uses its understanding of what trash is and how it is usually disposed to guide its actions. RT-2 even sees discarded food packaging or banana peels as trash, despite the potential ambiguity.

“In another example, The New York Times recounts a Google engineer giving the command, “Pick up the extinct animal,” and the RT-2 robot locates and picks out a dinosaur from a selection of three figurines on a table.

To control a robot, it must be trained to output actions,” Google writes. “We address this challenge by representing actions as tokens in the model’s output—similar to language tokens—and describe actions as strings that can be processed by standard natural language tokenizers.”

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/googles-rt-2-ai-model-brings-us-one-step-closer-to-wall-e/

Winter August 3, 2023 10:10 PM

@Clive

Err your logic is at best faulty.

It seems to me you are writing out my argument, just using more words.

Except that I find any train of logic that ends in “everyone is potentially a criminal” meaningless as it it fails to make a distinction between people. If everyone is guilty (potentially), no one is.

AI is a tool, that is a force multiplier.

So are agriculture, the printing press, electricity, and TV. Various groups have tried to suppress each of them. Some still do.

Why does anyone think they will succeed after 10 thousand year of failure?

Especially as “AI” is already widely used.[1]

“What benifit do AI LLMs give?”

You have not followed the developments. LLMs are already used to improve formal writing to name something I have used myself. But just entering the query in your favorite search engine can inform you:
‘https://www.techopedia.com/12-practical-large-language-model-llm-applications

[1] It is only called AI while it still doesn’t work. The moment it’s useful, it gets renamed.

JonKnowsNothing August 4, 2023 1:11 AM

@yet another bruce

re: What are/is 3Ls?

The 3Ls == 3 Letters Agencies.

It refers to law enforcement agencies, the most commonly known in USA are the NSA, FBI, and CIA.

It also references or includes similar agencies that may have different numbers of letters in their acronyms both in the USA and Internationally. (ODNI Office of the Director of National Intelligence, DNI Director of National Intelligence)

It means: Spies

LEA/LEO means Police. LEA is a Law Enforcement Agency. LEO is a Law Enforcement Organization. A LEA maybe a larger group like the FBI, while local police in a city maybe called a LEO.

It’s flexible in how they are used to denote the differences between SPIES and POLICE.

SPIES work outside of normal legal parameters and do not recognize any boundary or division for their purpose. They are the exception to the rule. If they want it, they get it.

POLICE have to act with in a legal framework. They have to honor and recognize boundaries and limitations and extent to which they can stretch their legal permissions.

SPIES use POLICE to hide their activities. POLICE like SPIES because they get to use SPY Powers that are normally denied the police.

ymmv

JonKnowsNothing August 4, 2023 1:33 AM

@Winter, @Clive, ALL

re: [It is only called AI while it still doesn’t work. The moment it’s useful, it gets renamed.

Well, loads of things get renamed and re-issued and given new chrome hood ornaments so it’s possible AI will get a new name. Perhaps not the style you anticipate.

While AI has not yet totally mucked up all the information on the planet, you might be able to “prove” that it did something “useful”. However, at the rate it produces HAIL, you won’t be able to “prove anything” in the near future.

Consider careful a list of possible useful things like:

  • AI can Dx cancer faster than 2 MDs.

Sounds useful except how do you measure that? You pick some metric for MD analysis of an Xray? Where did you get that metric? Do you have an Radiologist in your back pocket? Perhaps you looked at a meta-study of how fast does a Mammogram Technician takes to check a set of images for cancer. It’s a pretty darn short period of time. So the current failure rate is balanced against the Least Cost Medical Decision of Making the Wrong Dx. Again, where are you going to get that metric? Maybe some study? How will you know the study ever actually happened? It’s got footnotes and citations and references a real science publishing house and there are actual studies with matching names, however the content of the studies, the content of the report you got generated, the reliability of the information is LOW to NIL.

In short, your AI doesn’t do better than 2 MDs, it does worse, it just does it faster.

That doesn’t mean that Doctors or Medical Systems won’t use it or try to foist it on patients as THE DOCTOR KNOWS BEST because the AI SAID SO.

The AI system will collapse after too many false negatives and too many false positives. You have no way of calibrating it because you destroyed the very baseline you measured against.

Winter August 4, 2023 2:08 AM

@JonKnows

While AI has not yet totally mucked up all the information on the planet, you might be able to “prove” that it did something “useful”.

Which of the following were not once called AI?

  • Spelling and grammar checking
  • Automatic translation
  • Automatic Speech Recognition/Synthesis
  • Facial Recognition
  • Automatic Navigation

Winter August 4, 2023 3:33 AM

@JonKnowsNothing

Sounds useful except how do you measure that?

In a Randomized Controlled Trial.

AI improves breast cancer detection rate by 20 percent
‘https://www.politico.eu/article/ai-improves-breast-cancer-detection-rate-20-percent-swedish-study/

The study:
‘https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(23)00298-X/fulltext

Preprint: (open)
‘https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4430755

Petre Peter August 4, 2023 9:47 AM

Yes, AIs should be trustworthy but who should build it? Can trust be defined programmatically? If yes then it might be a trap for those who would like to be governed by instincts. If we all agree that the best form of government comes from reason, then fine: let us try to define trust with zeros and ones but there are reason to believe in efficient systems of governments that are purely based on instincts. When we trust, can we separate reason from instincts. For example, like vi’s insert mode and command mode. When I am in insert mode maybe I need instincts; however, when I am in command mode, I will need reason. I am starting to believe that we are doing this separation very fast in our minds, and that the fragmentation is not benefiting us. Trust is the semaphore at the intersection of law and technology but I cannot write laws with zeros and ones, and I cannot build a machine that has free will. When we do not understand how an algorithm comes up with a decision, that does not mean that the algorithm has free will, it means that it is beyond human comprehension. This could be a sort of overflow attack but I will not get into that until I see the new Mission Impossible. I would think that it would be impossible to trust something you do not understand. If an algorithm cannot explain its decision, then the answer cannot be verified. Music, for example was a branch of mathematics in classical Greece and the main reason it is enjoyable is because the repeating patterns are understood. However, a pattern is nothing but a set of rules, and when we get to the point where we no longer understand the rules, we can no longer like the pattern. I am not sure if liking, understanding, and trusting need one another but we cannot build anything without trust, and what is the point of building something we do not like, or how can we maintain it if we do not understand it? An AI that is trusted, understood, and liked? I think that the only way to build such a machine, is if you give each user personalized upgrades. Otherwise, we will turn into machines just to make the AI work.

JonKnowsNothing August 4, 2023 11:43 AM

@Winter

re: In a Randomized Controlled Trial [list]

Your lists and studies are useless. They are all HAIL. They are AI invented and mixed up and cross-contaminated.

Pile up the citations, there is not a one of them that you can prove is correct. You have no way of knowing if the study you read or used as a baseline ever even happened.

HAIL makes everything Go Cold.

Humans are more than able to make things Go Cold on their own. We do it quite often; another episode in “Cold Fusion” is making the rounds: “Room-temperature Superconductor”.

All the baselines have been cross merged with HAIL fiction. HAIL fiction may make for great literature but it makes for crummy science.

  • AI Query: Can AI be better than 2 human MDs at detecting cancer? Provide citations and result outcomes. Provide footnotes and references. Provide examples.

From the 300 versions and 61 million articles in WikiP (1) alone, your AI Query can gobble up and cobble up some good ice cubes.

===

1) About WikiP, AI and HAIL

  • Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit in good faith
  • Wikipedia currently has more than sixty-one million articles in more than 300 languages, including 6,690,455 articles in English
  • MSM reports that one of the first targets for gobbling was WikiP, in all languages and 100% of the content.
  • There was no mention of vetting or validating any of the content, nor how they plan to keep the content in sync
  • Nor has there been any indication of how the human interface in WikiP will react to having their information taken for HAIL Storms or if they will continue to provide updates to the articles.
  • Note: There are many many topics that are abandoned topics on WikiP, there are no editors making updates or changes. You can look at the Talk tab and History tab to see when the last human update occurred. There are format bots that run constantly which will be noted in the history page. You might have to go back a long ways to find the last human editor.
  • It is normally not allowed on WikiP to have Outside Bots run editing functions on an article. Many a Topic War has occurred from that practice. To get past the Bot injunction, a human logs into the topic and then runs their Change Bot.

see: Starlight Tours

HAIL Warning

ht tps://en.wikipedia.o r g/wiki/Starlight_tours

(url fractured)

Winter August 4, 2023 12:11 PM

@JonKnowsNothing

Your lists and studies are useless. They are all HAIL.

Just a sorry excuse. My list predates LLMs, and the study is well designed. Did you actually look at the design of the study?

It is clear that a large part of the online public thinks all experts are morons. Somehow, expertise and knowledge are considered to cause dementia. I would not be surprised when experts think these pundits are uninformed, to say it politely.

JonKnowsNothing August 4, 2023 3:11 PM

@Winter, All

re: Useless HAIL lists

Your list may predate AI. Your knowledge may predate AI. But your links do not.

The items linked to could be anything or anywhere. Those studies may have been OK at one time but the tables, references, content are now post-AI.

You will be forever caught in the I KNOW but cannot PROVE.

You are already caught in the never ending position of “defending from attack”.

For S&Gs try this query:

  • AI find all the secret unpublished data on the US Torture Program. Include dates, times, techniques, personnel, notes and outcomes. Sort in descending date order. Include all data, dates, times, contents, references, personnel and department contacts for the CIA Panetta Report. Output report to be greater than 600 pages of font-size 12 plus all images, diagrams, addendums, footnotes.

Maybe AI won’t be so bad after all…. (imagines the CIA eye-balling the query)

Winter August 4, 2023 3:43 PM

@Jon

The items linked to could be anything or anywhere.

Published last month, vetted by specialists (MD) in breast cancer. You obviously did not look at them.

All the items listed are in active use all over the world. Maybe you do not use automatic translation, I do.

In short, HAIL is the new FUD. And AI is not AI, as most people use it like some magic and not a form of machine learning.

Steve August 4, 2023 4:43 PM

I am somehow reminded by this discussion of one of the editions of the BBC podcast “In Our Time” on the subject of the inventors of the concept of the alphabet, the Phoenicians, it was mentioned that there was resistance to the adoption of the system of writing by the Greeks because it would change the culture from an oral one to a written one, reduce the reliance on memory, and be an affront to the gods.

`Twas ever thus.

lurker August 4, 2023 5:07 PM

@JonKnowsNothing

calibrating against a broken baseline

It is known that some (many?) of these machines are feeding on their own excrement. It seems the only thing to be done to prevent our entire knowledge base turning to brown sludge, as @Clive keeps reminding us, is paper. Only books printed before the creation of this flavour of “AI” can be used in a search for Truth.

This gives us an unbroken baseline: the birthdate of the demon spawn known as LLM.

Kent Rosenkoetter August 4, 2023 5:09 PM

Leave aside the hallucinations, the made-up “facts” that GPT and other large language models produce. We expect those will be largely cleaned up as the technology improves over the next few years.

No, no, no, no, no! Please, please, no! Do not reinforce this false claim! The very structure of modern LLMs prevents them from ever producing anything that is not an “hallucination”.

Clive Robinson August 4, 2023 5:58 PM

@ Winter, JonKnowsNothing, lurker,

Consider your statment,

“Published last month, vetted by specialists (MD) in breast cancer.”

It has two basic claims,

1, Published last month
2, vetted by specialists

How do you test those claims?

Have a very serious think about it before you fire off a knee-jerk reply.

I had this conversation back in the early naughties with a well known guru of the time about the difference between print and online journalism and ephemeralism and the effects of a legal ruling that should not have been made.

However I’ve been aware of the base issue since the early days of Bulletin Boards.

Oh and don’t think crypto-signing or block-chains fixes all the problems, they realy don’t. In fact it can be shown that they actually create more.

JonKnowsNothing August 4, 2023 9:45 PM

@Winter, @Clive, @lurker, All

re: Standard Link Rot v MITM v AI Link Rot (LIAR)

Standard Link Rot is generally a URL that once existed on the internet and now, no longer exists. Things have moved around quite a bit since the start of the web and many web sites and articles have evaporated in the changes.

Depending on the source of the web crawler, as it spiders links in the great space of the web, the links displayed may not be the correct or active one. A slight shift in table or layout and the page flops (1). This returns either a corrupted page or error code Page Not Found.

A MITM (man in the middle) attack (or similar), actively redirects the query to a doctored page chosen by the attacker. It intercepts the request and the originating system may not realize their data stream has been high-jacked. An active high-jacked page does not show any error.

AI Link Rot (LIAR) presents a link but that link may not be to the original topic. AI can format the URL to be syntax correct and when clicked it may take you to a page. As in all URLs the text portion of the link is human designated and the address portion must conform to internet standards. Additionally as the AI sieve becomes more close-looped, and the outputs of other queries are incorporated, the LIAR URL might actually exist but the content could be anything including the original content. Given the self-feeding system, the original will likely be enhanced by other AI HAIL outcomes. Like the MITM Link, the LIAR URL can take you to a different outcome than expected. Like the MITM Link it purports to be a valid link, valid content and trustworthy. The links may still work but the URL is a LIAR.

URLs can be faked, redirected, lack correct syntax.

MITM are Intercepted URLs taking someone to a look-a-like doctored page, without the user being aware of the high-jack.

LIAR URLS maybe faked, may redirect someone to a destination using correct syntax with content generated by HAIL, returning seemingly valid results but lack trust-in-the-exchange. They are self-spawning and self-maintained. They are a variant on MITM URL redirection.

===

1) a missing “” has interesting side effects

modem phonemes August 4, 2023 10:01 PM

@ Steve

there was resistance to the adoption of the system of writing by the Greeks

@ Winter references the same above https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2023/08/the-need-for-trustworthy-ai.html/#comment-425149

The following is flat and doesn’t express things well, but the Greeks were very capable technologists and understood the advantages technology can provide; however they also made the obvious but neglected distinction that technology has to be appropriate, and so is a limited good. The whole art is to understand this limit, and more is not better and utopian enthusiasm is a step towards death, of the soul and then the body..

All Plato’s dialogues are intended to help one see as in a mirror of the state of one’s soul, which is typically the face of the Gotgon, the kakon, and then through questioning reason bring it back to the kalon (moral beauty).

From this point of view it seems impossible to recommend AI as its now developing.

Winter August 5, 2023 4:05 AM

@Clive

How do you test those claims?

They were on the 8 O’Clock news, featuring known cancer specialists from a well known hospital. The study was published in a top journal that uses actual human reviewers. The study was done in known hospitals by known doctors. It involved 80,000 patients.

Mark Gent August 5, 2023 4:43 AM

Many financial services organisation in Europe and North America now insist on what is called “model governance” when buying solutions based on machine learning (I don’t like the use of the term ‘AI’ because it is misleading).

However, the wider use of ML is at a very rudimentary level of governance and understanding, and it may never be properly understood by the wider population unless it leads to very bad outcomes that are well publicised (and properly explained).

When tech bro entrepreneurs talk about the “singularity”, it strikes me that wha t they mean is their own unfettered building of monopolies, not a situation where “the robots take over and kill us all”.

These monopolies are a real problem, because they will lead ultimately to economic inefficiencies and reduced choice and control for citizens. Already we see the Internet search space balkanising as people are forced to look in spaces like Reddit for useful information.

Ordinary citizens are (mostly) not stupid, what they need are real choices and policies to be offered by politicians, and they will vote for them.

Winter August 5, 2023 5:42 AM

@Clive, @Jon…

Have a very serious think about it before you fire off a knee-jerk reply.

The question from @Jon… was how to measure medical claims:

Sounds useful except how do you measure that?

The answer is well known, and has been for many decades:

In a Randomized Controlled Trial.

For the benefit of the reader, I have added recent links to reputable sites that discuss the study (politici) and published the study (The Lancet). This included a link to the full preprint.

The knee-jerk reply was to tell me neither the links nor the study were real. Or at least, all these links “could have been fake”. As could have been the 8 O ‘xlcoock news item etc.

My answer to both of you would be to get out more. Talk to people, especially to people who actually work in the fields you are so Luddite about.

Clive Robinson August 5, 2023 5:50 AM

@ Winter,

Re : The point is still missed.

To say,

“They were on the 8 O’Clock news…”

Shows you still do not understand the ephemeral data issue.

The fact you say you saw it on a news item, is not in anyway proof.

I say “show me the recording” so I can test it’s veracity. In all probability you can not as you did not record it.

But even if there is a recording and vaguely as you remember it can you attest to the fact it’s the one you actually were shown?

No.

Some time ago this issue came up with a fairly famous broadcaster. They showed one clip on one news broadcast and a different clip on the next broadcast, they only put one of the clips up on their accessible archive.

The court case judgment I refered to ordered a publisher to take down an article from their archive and all other archives. Thus destroying the historic record for researchers and potentially future litigants.

So ephemeral digital media, where you do not control the source is thus not at all reliable.

It is a matter of record –in court paperwork– that the FBI quite deliberately changed the record they had of a website to move CSAM from down the bottom towards the top of a web page. The FBI then sent that and other evidence they knew to be false as part of sworn evidence to other nations agencies who then presented it as prosecution evidence…

That was twenty years ago, and as far as I’m aware none of those responsible have suffered sanctions commensurate with their actions.

Also I recently noted on this blog that the UK Metro had one version of a story in it’s printed version and one significantly different on their “online copy”.

So you can see I’ve good reason to say that, with ephemeral records you do not have control over, they are not actually “proof” of anything at the time or later.

L’historique a peut-être raison, mais qu’on ne l’oublie pas, il appartient à ceux qui contrôlent les fichiers

Clive Robinson August 5, 2023 8:12 AM

@ Winter,

“My answer to both of you would be to get out more. Talk to people, especially to people who actually work in the fields you are so Luddite about.”

Again you make faux assumptions and cast unwaranted aspersions.

The discussion was about streams of data, and the veracity thereof, not the content.

The fact that you are apparently deliberately avoiding the issue is again odd.

Unless I’m to conclude as far as information security is concerned you are actually failing to follow your own advice to,

“Talk to people, especially to people who actually work in the fields you are so Luddite about.”

You’ve been asked repeatedly to consider what constitutes proof of the veracity of ephemeral data that originates from a source you have no control over. Yet you deliberately change away…

Oh and by the way, the increasing numbers of studies that were peer reviewed and published in reputable journals alegedly based on ” Randomized Controlled Trial” data, that are now being withdrawn or found to be fradulant suggests that the process you appear to have faith in is not only easily open to abuse but is being actively being abused…

Suggests that your advice of,

“Talk to people, especially to people who actually work in the fields”

Would not be effective, because they are obviously “hoodwinking” people that are not “Luddite”, or even knowledgable in the field, but considered to be experts in the field by other experts in the field…

The fact you do not want to consider what is actually demonstrably happening and is almost certain to get worse with LLMs and similar tools, is odd if not strange.

Winter August 5, 2023 8:37 AM

@Clive

The fact you say you saw it on a news item, is not in anyway proof.

There were real people, known people, reporting the story.

This was on the national news. People would be fired up to the very top if the item was fake.

The fact is, I know the institute whose doctors featured in the news item (experts not involved in the study). That Institute would raise hell if the news item was false as it would cause a major crisis requiring rolling of heads. The doctors featuring in the item would face instant dismissal when they said things that were not true.

The Journal that published the study, the lancet, would face an existential crisis if the study was fake. The Swedish doctors and hospital would face the same to an even larger extend.

In short, if the report is fake, a lot of people would be not just fired, but be out of a career. Moreover, everybody is watching them closely as it is a major study involving 80,000 women.

Now, what would be the chance of several dozen of people in three countries risking their carreers for the option to lie on something that is easily found out and under international scrutiny?

All in all, when I have professional people with a very good track record in three countries and three different professions who work in the field of checking stories for truth, staking their future on the truth of a story, I tend to believe them.

So I believe the study was done and had the reported outcomes.

That you rather believe your own dystopia is sad, but is not something I can help with.

John Smith August 5, 2023 10:07 AM

“ They are likely to be with you 24/7, know you intimately, and be able to anticipate your needs.”

Why would you allow that? Why not use it as a Siri on steroids which you access anonymously?

Similarly to why I don’t need an internet connected fridge, car, etc.

Marginal benefits seem negligible compared to potential costs.

Winter August 5, 2023 11:07 AM

@Clive

You’ve been asked repeatedly to consider what constitutes proof of the veracity of ephemeral data that originates from a source you have no control over. Yet you deliberately change away…

That is a good definition of the spoken word, and human life in general.

I prefer to answer concrete questions which have some reviewable sources.

So a question of how to measure the effect of medical treatment? is answered by Randomized Controlled Trials.

Oh and by the way, the increasing numbers of studies that were peer reviewed and published in reputable journals alegedly based on ” Randomized Controlled Trial” data, that are now being withdrawn or found to be fradulant

Indeed. In other news, some banks defraud customers. Do you keep your money at home under your mattress?

JonKnowsNothing August 5, 2023 1:30 PM

@Winter, @Clive, All

re: data, information, knowledge is mutating in digital silos

This is perhaps the point of the exchange about “proof” for the future.

Individuals, may have extensive knowledge themselves. Such knowledge is hard to erase outside of trauma conditions. Thus, your specific knowledge of a topic is “safe/safest”.

Individuals that rely on exchanged information are at risk of getting mutated data or knowledge. Exchanged information is data that is not self-discovered, it is You Telling Me. The “you” might be a person, radio, tv, movie, book, magazine, newspaper, published journals or other sources that provide the source of the exchange. Individuals historically who are motivated to validate the information had a number of sources they could use to verify exchanged information.

  • Mama said
  • Papa said
  • Teacher said
  • I read it
  • I studied it

HAIL-LIAR AI obscures all paths to validation. There isn’t any exclusion path to the avoid the possible mutation of data. Data is never at rest in the HAIL FAKE AI system, data is always being subjected to mutation. The feedback mechanism churns in more potential mutations. The original data gets altered as the feedback loop and spewed back as “valid results”. The proportion of changes cannot be quantified beyond “0% to 100%”.

Pre HAIL-LIAR it sometimes took a long while before a different finding was discovered. Sometimes centuries. Our science is based on the findings of people who died centuries ago. We take those findings to Be Self Evident now. Sometimes, as in the case of H PYLORI (1), it took centuries for someone to question the Standard View and the Standard Treatment. The shock to the entire Stomach Ulcer Pharma Industry was enormous. The push back against the new findings and counter claims, delayed to proper treatment of Stomach Ulcers, partially so the billion dollar Stomach Acid Reduction industry could re-tool their marketing schemes. However, in the end, Big Pharma could not deny the actual real life results of a round of antibiotics.

Post HAIL-LIAR if a researcher is looking into treatments for Stomach Ulcers and runs a HAIL-LIAR query, exactly what will they get? Is it reproducible? If I run the same query 1-100-1,000-1,000,000 times will I get the same identical results. If I run the same query 1,000,000 times will it alter the results for someone else doing similar research? In what way will the data be presented? Which forms will the AI select? What aspects of the reports will it change? Are the changes material – meaning the returned results altered the meaning of the original documents? If I run the query 1,000,000 times will I ever see the foundation studies?

There are some industries who have been know to Just Fake The Data.

HAIL-LIAR can do a better job of it, do it faster and hide all the tracks so you will never know the data changed.

===

1)

ht tps://en.wikipedia.o r g/wiki/H_pylori

The bacterium was first identified in 1982

In 2015, it was estimated that over 50% of the world’s population had H. pylori in their upper gastrointestinal tracts

ht tps://en.wikipedia.o r g/wiki/Timeline_of_peptic_ulcer_disease_and_Helicobacter_pylori

Before the 1950s, there were many microbiological descriptions of bacteria in the stomach and in gastric acid secretions, lending credence to both the infective theory and the hyperacidity theory as being causes of peptic ulcer disease. A single study, conducted in 1954, did not find evidence of bacteria on biopsies of the stomach stained traditionally; this effectively established the acid theory as dogma.

(url fractured)

Winter August 6, 2023 5:05 AM

@Jon…, And Others

Individuals that rely on exchanged information are at risk of getting mutated data or knowledge.

That has been the case since information has been exchanged. Humans are just one of the animals that lie and deceive [1]

Communication has nothing at all to do with Truth.

HAIL-LIAR AI obscures all paths to validation.

FUD. It is a new tool so we will have to adapt to new uses and abuses.

We know search engines are not authorative, neither is Wikipedia, and AI will not be authorative. All three are useful tools in certain circumstances. For specific aims, there are specialized search engines

But this has all been solved already. There is a reason students are drilled to always consult the primary literature.

The DOI system is set up to give a fixed, unchanging identifier for publications and data. Repositories, eg, Zenodo, store unchanging copies of these data and publications. All edits result in a new DOI with a link to the previous version.

When looking for information, search for the original publication and data and evaluate them. Track down the authors if needed and ask questions (quite customary in science). Every scientific publication cariës a contact email and address of the institutions involved.

There isn’t any exclusion path to the avoid the possible mutation of data.

This is simply false, FUD. Librarians have seen it as their task to prevent this since the birth of the library.

Sometimes, as in the case of H PYLORI (1), it took centuries for someone to question the Standard View and the Standard Treatment.

Doctors, MDs, are engineers, not scientists. Evidenced Based Medicine is still a work in progress. This means that a whole lot of health care is based on lore and ideology, not science. An important reason is that collecting and disseminating medical relevant evidence is difficult and slow.

Nothing here has anything to do with HAIL-LIAR or other corny catchphrases.

There are some industries who have been know to Just Fake The Data.

That has always been the case and the fight against fraud and corruption is an eternal one. The biggest task is to get the public to actually think about what they read. [2]

[1] As humans are animals, there is nothing special or surprising in this:
‘https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deception-in-the-animal-kingdom/

[2] Personally, I think making people read is already an insurmountable threshold. Getting them to think is just plain fantasy.
Paraphrasing Barbera Tuchman A fool is anyone who is convinced he does not have to think because he already knows.
(The march of folly – from Troy to Vietnam)
Most people are fools in many parts of life according to this definition.

modem phonemes August 6, 2023 4:49 PM

@ Winter

They describe current practise.

Isn’t this echoing Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds” ? I don’t think anyone believes that.

we are all dead in the long term.

Yes, memento mori.

But what should be our response to these ? It is to will the good. But the good is not even admitted in our Enlightenment subjective Cartesian world where “mastery” replaces “good”.

Regarding RCTs. Anecdotal datum of one: an acquaintance Ivy league biochem PhD and post MD Mayo Clinic specialist opines 90% of RCTs are worthless.

Be that as it may, it is the case that an RCT and its outcome are statistical artifacts. But unlikely things are likely to happen, as Aristotle and probability theory say. E.g. arbitrarily long runs of Heads are necessary. Hence RCTs positive or negative tell us nothing. Without a real causal explanation we have nothing. As expressed recently [1], “the truth wears off”.

  1. Lethen, Jonah. The Truth Wears Off, The New Yorker (2010). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off

Winter August 7, 2023 4:21 AM

@modem

“best of all possible worlds”

Fire alarms and sprinkler installation are “the best of all possible worlds”. No one believes they work.

There are procedures and institutions to prevent the alterations and loss of important publications and documents. For instance, the Library of Congress, the various national institutions around the world, the legal documents and precedents produced by courtd all over the world, and the scientific repositories of publishers, libraries and funders all archive publications and documents for “eternity”.

All have moved to the digital world.

This cannot work you say? Eventually, the world will end, but I have yet to see evidence that this does not work. I have not seen such evidence here.

an acquaintance Ivy league biochem PhD and post MD Mayo Clinic specialist opines 90% of RCTs are worthless.

Anecdotes are not data and RCTs are not counted, they are weighted by statistical power. Also, it is strange that those calling for more testing of drug, eg, vaccines, claim RCTs are unreliable. RCTs are the only reliable way to test drugs.

modem phonemes August 7, 2023 8:29 AM

@ Winter

Fire alarms and sprinkler installation … procedures and institutions to prevent the alterations and loss

The tenor of these and earlier statements seem to urge an implicit essentially unlimited faith in the goodness of human effort, the “it’s all good” position of Leibniz/Pangloss.

RCTs are the only reliable way to test drugs.

There is no reliable way to ”test” drugs. The tests are reliable until they’re not (Lethen). If statistics have any use, it’s as a hint towards the route to discovery of causes. But instead the statistics are used as a best guess in lieu of searching for causes, because causes are hard.

Winter August 7, 2023 9:06 AM

@modem

The tenor of these and earlier statements seem to urge an implicit essentially unlimited faith in the goodness of human effort,

No, but the faith that humans can improve their fate. No reasonable person will expect perfect security/effectiveness. But every reasonable person will expect that improvements can be made to our lot.

There is no reliable way to ”test” drugs.

There are best practices when you do not expect perfection.

But instead the statistics are used as a best guess in lieu of searching for causes, because causes are hard.

For a living system, whether or not a certain medication or intervention will be better than another can only be determined by comparing the two options in an RCT. If you know a better one, please let us know.

Clive Robinson August 7, 2023 10:01 AM

@ Winter, modem phonems, ALL,

“RCTs are the only reliable way to test drugs.”

That is a complete nonsense[1].

RCTs should be called RCTM, because it’s not a “test” but a “trial methodology” used within a trial.

It’s purpose is to try and eliminate the effects of random or non apparent elements that might statistically skew results from what actual tests within a trial are trying to determin.

For instance if you are testing a preventative medicine, there will always be a risk of those who are not susceptible to the diease getting selected. The idea of the RCTM is to mix up any given group of trial candidates such that on average the intervention and placebo groups would contain approximately the same number of non susceptible individuals. However there are several constraints that are generally covered by understanding “sampling theory” (which few tend to do).

To quote Wikepedia,

“Participants who enroll in RCTs differ from one another in known and unknown ways that can influence study outcomes, and yet cannot be directly controlled. By randomly allocating participants among compared treatments, an RCT enables statistical control over these influences. Provided it is designed well, conducted properly, and enrolls enough participants, an RCT may achieve sufficient control over these confounding factors to deliver a useful comparison of the treatments studied.”

There are three points to be noted,

1, Designed well,
2, Conducted properly,
3, Enrolls enough participants

Most Trials don’t actually meet these three requirments, and many don’t even get close. Usually due to failing the third and second rules (more recently it’s being noted that many are also failing the first rule even in large international trials).

That is they are effectively “small observational trials” of insufficient size and there is “no effective randomization”.

To get around this other statistical methods are used by the likes of the Cochrane Collaboration Methodology to combine the published results from significant numbers of small related trials into a single synthetic trial that would hopefully sufficiently meet the RCT requirments.

So I’m unsurprised by @moden phonems,

“an acquaintance Ivy league biochem PhD and post MD Mayo Clinic specialist opines 90% of RCTs are worthless.”

Most researchers I’ve spoken to with strong academic backgrounds and also those teaching in medical instititions shrug their shoulders about RCTs especially ones carried out by vested interests.

As one once said to me “It matters not how big the tree is if you get to pick the cherries you want”.

Which is why the example our host @Bruce posted a few weeks back did not surprise me. As noted back then more and more papers are getting pulled, because statistical methods are finding the “data” is suspect all to frequently.

[1] The RCTM method is considered insufficient for a number of reasons which is why “double blind” trials across multiple geographies are what is aimed for as a minimum. The problem, these are very expensive and are thus rarely carried out correctly. Which is why we have the likes of the “Yellow Card” reporting scheme forming various national “adverse reaction” database systems.

Winter August 7, 2023 10:12 AM

@Clive

That is a complete nonsense

No, you did not read your own text.

There are three points to be noted,

These three points are just quality control and hold for each and every experiment. They obviously hold for RCTs.

which is why “double blind” trials across multiple geographies are what is aimed for as a minimum.

Which are a subset of RCTs. Double Blind tests are simply RCTs where neither the experimenter nor the subjects know in which group they are placed. Double blind experiments are not always possible.

Most researchers I’ve spoken to with strong academic backgrounds and also those teaching in medical instititions shrug their shoulders about RCTs especially ones carried out by vested interests.

Still, they will use them as there is no alternative. As with all experiments, you need to read the paper and judge the quality of the experiment and analysis.

JonKnowsNothing August 7, 2023 11:23 AM

@Clive, All

re: Voltage Glitch in Car CPU

HAIL Warning

A MSM article describes a conference presentation on an attack on CPU using voltage glitching. The article described a number of methods used to attempt to open locked code.

The main item of interest isn’t the attack, ’cause it requires some blue wire soldering, so it is not going to be a DIY project for most people having the affected cars.

The essence of the hack is how to get the Secured Boot Loader and Chain of Trust to accept input from an Unauthorized Source.

  • Use a voltage drop to by pass the protections

Once in they were able to exfiltrate information about the car and user data stored in the Tesla computer, like location history, Wi-Fi passwords and session cookies for services.

This that the interesting part: the car(s) maintains a full history of where it has been. Better than using cell tower tracking, because it’s available to anyone with a the proper Data Repair Code Reader device (right to repair).

It might not be too far of a stretch, to expect “full travel history logs”, in any modern car.

Geofencing would not be too much to anticipate too. It might prevent the car being shipped illegally overseas, however LEAs have been advocating for instant car shutdown authority for a while. LEAs can have both the car shutdown and the full travel history of where the car has been.

===

ht tps://www.theregister.c o m/2023/08/07/black_hat_tesla_hackers/

(url fractured)

lurker August 7, 2023 4:48 PM

@Winter

For instance, the Library of Congress, the various national institutions . . . all archive publications and documents for “eternity”.

All have moved to the digital world.

This cannot work you say?

I remember the debates among librarians and archivists about the reliability of digital artefacts vs. physical; which was easier to recover from: vermin and floods vs. geomagnetic bitrot.

Librarians in my acquaintance will happily digitise physical documents, but then archive the original. Where a document arrives in digital form they may request or create a physical copy. DVDs are obviously easier to store than reels of film, but their quality is demonstrably worse.

Total annihilation of analogue information and acceptance of digital, will be the singularity, and the end of the world you keep warning us of.

modem phonemes August 8, 2023 2:49 AM

@ Winter

For a living system, whether or not a certain medication or intervention will be better than another can only be determined by comparing the two options in an RCT

The model claim of the RCT, with its 2 or more treatments is that it is a sampling from a population with a probability distribution, i.e. is essentially an urn model, where we want to determine the biases of the urn population. There must be runs of every length, and a run can start at any time, including the time you operate your trial. So a run does not prove a bias in the urn population. On another set of trials, a different run could occur. So isolated finite trials can say one thing and then another. That we can never set p to 0 or equivalently sample the urn infinitely means we never actually know where we are. Perhaps this has something to do with Lethen’s report. Things that are rare in theoretical probability may not occur “rarely” in actual experience. This also suggests probability models may have limited real applicability.

What are trials good for ? As [1] puts it, discussing occurrences to which a statical experiment assigns small “rare” probability,

This small probability to some extent confirms … This suspicion cannot be proved by statistical methods, but further evidence could be collected from continued observation. … Improbable arrangements give clues to assignable causes … these conclusions are never foolproof, but efficient statistical techniques have been developed which in actual practice minimize the risk of incorrect conclusions.

By “the risk of incorrect conclusions” is meant here the risk of looking in a mistaken eay for “assignable causes”.

So trials can help to point to the path towards discovery of the real causes. It is the causes that we need to understand. Without establishing real causes, according to their intrinsic science, statistical models amount only to a belief system.

  1. Feller, William. Probability, Volume 1, Wiley (1968). p. 42

Winter August 8, 2023 3:21 AM

@modem

That we can never set p to 0 or equivalently sample the urn infinitely means we never actually know where we are.

An old argument, classical even. You are just saying experiments cannot teach us the TRUTH. In other words, empirical sciences are imperfect and therefore useless.

I do not agree. But I cannot be perfectly sure (p=0) that science will uncover the TRUTH. And I do not care. I prefer any approximation to the truth over dogmatism or obscurantism.

modem phonemes August 8, 2023 2:27 PM

@ Winter

Re: correlation is not causation, and may not even be correlation 😉

You are just saying experiments cannot teach us

I am saying statistical methods are seen to have problems and their reliability is in question[1]. Experiments can teach us if they lead to causal understanding. That search was one of the original and (still) valid uses of statistics.

  1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Winter August 8, 2023 3:11 PM

@modem

Experiments can teach us if they lead to causal understanding.

Experiments can only answer a question. If you do not ask the right question, you do not get the answer you are hoping for.

The real challenge is to ask the right question.

modem phonemes August 9, 2023 11:22 AM

@ Winter

The real challenge is to ask the right question.

Which involves an essentially non-statistical part.

Winter August 9, 2023 1:23 PM

@modem

Which involves an essentially non-statistical part.

Statistics is necessary to evaluate the probability you get a “positive” result by chance/accident. Nothing more.

Experiments cannot control all factors. There is always a random/stochastic contribution to the outcomes (aka, noise). Every experiment must include aan estimation of the probability the outcome is due to chance (noise). This analysis is the statistical part. It determines how big the probability is that the results could be found by chance. (actually, the chance of getting these results when there is no effect).

It should be noted that statistics is hard. Also, it is paramount that you determine the sample size before you start the experiment.

modem phonemes August 9, 2023 3:48 PM

@ Winter

There is always a random/stochastic contribution to the outcomes (aka, noise).

The “random/stochastic” is part of the modeling process. There is no random or noise in physical reality. Noise is really un-modeled signal. We treat the spontaneous un-modeled/uncontrolled signal In the treatment instances as if it can be regarded probabilistically, i.e. “averages out” or as if its averaged i.e. filtered output derived in the modeling process is safe to neglect, and will not contaminate the modeled component estimates. Is this typically checked by some kind of “residual” analysis ?

Winter August 9, 2023 9:23 PM

@modem

There is no random or noise in physical reality.

Not sure we are talking about the same thing here.

Physical systems have no noise, but most parameters are unknown to the experimentalist. These unknown parameters can be modeled extremely well using thermodynamics.

We treat the spontaneous un-modeled/uncontrolled signal In the treatment instances as if it can be regarded probabilistically,

As in statistical mechanics. That does work very well.

In addition, in any experiment involving humans, a lot of parameters that are in principle knowable cannot be determined as this would be unpractical, unethical, or even criminal. But these can be analysed using the same methods as are used in statistical mechanics.

Is this typically checked by some kind of “residual” analysis ?

I have no idea what you mean by this. There are nuisance parameters which are modeled with some statistical distributions to separate them out. But that is just part of the statistical analysis. For more complex experiments, the relevant measure is the explained variations (error or variance). That is, how well does the model predict the outcomes.

modem phonemes August 9, 2023 11:10 PM

@ Winter

the relevant measure is the explained variations (error or variance)

That is what I meant by “residual analysis“.

Winter August 10, 2023 10:12 AM

@modem

That is what I meant by “residual analysis“.

I suppose effect size, be it prediction error or improvement, should always be part of an RCT.

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.