SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Donald Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (31862)8/14/2019 6:43:10 AM
From: RetiredNow2 Recommendations

Recommended By
GROUND ZERO™
toccodolce

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 73841
 
GZ,
I'm getting very worried about China's advances in Artificial Intelligence and the fact that Google is helping them. Google is one of the most advanced developers of AI in the US and they have refused to help the US military, but they have established a massive AI campus in China to help them develop their AI. This is treasonous, and yet, our government, FBI, CIA, and Trump are doing nothing to stop it. Google is an extremely liberal company. That has been proven and now they are actively working to undermine and destroy the US.

“We are being outspent. We are being out-researched. We are being outpaced. We are being out-staffed,” said Amy Webb, a professor at the NYU Stern School of Business who specializes in future forecasting. “We have failed and are continuing to fail to see China as a militaristic, economic, and diplomatic pacing threat when it comes to AI.” Xi “sees artificial intelligence as an integral point in shifting geopolitics and geo-economics,” Webb said. China is spending 9 percent of its government budget on R&D — three times the U.S. level, she said. Meanwhile, in Washington, “there is a small group of people, they are having meetings and I have been to some of those meetings. And there is just no sense of urgency,” she said.


'We are being outspent. We are being outpaced': Is America ceding the future of AI to China?

POLITICO’s latest Global Translations podcast examines the economic, military and ethical stakes in the geopolitical rivalry over AI.

By LUIZA CH. SAVAGE and NANCY SCOLA

07/18/2019 05:03 AM EDT

The last time a rival power tried to out-innovate the U.S. and marshaled a whole-of-government approach to doing it, the Soviet Union startled Americans by deploying the first man-made satellite into orbit. The Sputnik surprise in 1957 shook American confidence, galvanized its government and set off a space race culminating with the creation of NASA and the moon landing 50 years ago this month.

Two years since announcing a national plan to become the world leader in artificial intelligence by 2030, China is making progress toward its goal on an unprecedented scale, raising the question of whether America’s laissez-faire approach to technology is enough and whether another Sputnik moment is around the corner, according to interviews for the latest episode of POLITICO’s Global Translations podcast.

President Donald Trump in 2018 declared AI a national priority, and Lynne Parker, the White House coordinator on artificial intelligence policy, said America “is a very strong leader” in AI.

“If you look at industry output, if you look at the leading academic institutions that are leading the way and advancing the state of the art and AI, they’re American industries and they're American academics,” Parker said. “We're clearly producing the most impactful commercial products. And certainly that's not to say that the rest of the world isn't waking up to the great opportunities of AI — but clearly, the United States is in the lead.”

Meanwhile, Beijing has been pumping billions of dollars into research, supporting startups and retooling its education system from elementary schools to universities — all with an explicit goal of outpacing the U.S.

Governments around the world are taking notice.

“Over the last 10 years, there's been a big effort in China to become a world leader in research and in many areas — but one of them being computing — and I've seen computer science departments grow and grow until they are now on a par with departments in the West in terms of what the academics do and where they publish,” Dame Wendy Hall, professor of computer science at the University of Southampton and co-author of the U.K. government’s AI strategy, told the podcast.

The Chinese effort extends to regional and local governments, too. “The city of Tianjin alone plans to spend $16 billion on AI — and the U.S. government investment still totals several billion and counting. That’s still lower by an order of magnitude,” said Elsa Kania, an adjunct fellow with the Technology and National Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

By her count, some 26 AI plans and policies have cropped up across 19 provinces and regions in China. “These tens of billions in local government spending far outshadows anything any city or state government in the U.S. is doing,” she said.

Like the Soviet Sputnik, President Xi Jinping’s emphasis on AI as part of his “China Dream” has a military aspect to it as well.“It's clear that AI has become an element of U.S.-China military competition and that the Chinese military sees this pursuit of intelligentization — or trying to leverage AI to enhance its military capabilities — as critical to achieving an advantage, perhaps even surpassing the U.S.,” said Kania, who studies Chinese military innovation.

Under pressure to compete on the AI front, the Trump administration last May issued an executive order that calls on the U.S. to improve research and development and come up with plans to maintain supremacy in innovation. “It's a multi-pronged approach that addresses a lot of areas such as AI R&D, making data more available, making computational resources more available, looking at education and workforce issues, AI governance issues, issues of technical standards and also issues of international engagement,” Parker said.

But critics worry it’s not nearly enough.

“We are being outspent. We are being out-researched. We are being outpaced. We are being out-staffed,” said Amy Webb, a professor at the NYU Stern School of Business who specializes in future forecasting. “We have failed and are continuing to fail to see China as a militaristic, economic, and diplomatic pacing threat when it comes to AI.”

Xi “sees artificial intelligence as an integral point in shifting geopolitics and geo-economics,” Webb said. China is spending 9 percent of its government budget on R&D — three times the U.S. level, she said. Meanwhile, in Washington, “there is a small group of people, they are having meetings and I have been to some of those meetings. And there is just no sense of urgency,” she said.

The rivalry is unfolding in tandem with Trump’s trade war with Beijing — which is itself, in part, an effort to force China to end forced technology transfers that have helped accelerate Chinese technological progress. And at stake are not only technological bragging rights, but military supremacy and control of technologies that can be used for authoritarian social control, according to interviews in the Global Translations podcast.

For example, AI-enabled facial recognition and voice recognition technology are part of an intensive surveillance system used to control China’s Muslim Uighur minority in the Xinjiang province — and that technology is being exported to other authoritarian regimes.

Such concerns have led to attempts at global governance. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has put forth principles for standards and ethics to guide its development and deployment embraced by 41 countries, including the U.S.

The administration is continuing to work on a regulatory framework through Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Parker said. “We always want to use AI in a way that's consistent with civil liberties and privacy and American values. So clearly we don't want to become a surveillance state like China,” she said. “On the other hand, the opposite extreme is to over-regulate to the point where we can't use it at all."

Critics like Webb say the U.S. market-based approach depends too much on the private sector.

“The problem with relying on the private sector and specifically companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, IBM and Microsoft is that these are publicly traded companies. They have to turn a profit. So we've really put ourselves in kind of a preventable and also dangerous situation,” she said.

But the sheer scale of China’s brute-force effort should not be confused with results, cautions Parker. “The downside to having a centralized focused approach is that you get very quickly to an end goal that may be the wrong goal. The advantage of the American innovation ecosystem is that we allow many good ideas to be explored in depth and we can see which ones are going to be fruitful,” she said.

When the Soviets launched Sputnik, Washington vowed to never be surprised again — and the following year stood up DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The new agency was focused on long-term, game-changing research and funded projects that led to breakthroughs such as the internet, GPS, early self-driving cars and the beginnings of AI.

In 2018, the agency announced it was investing $2 billion on AI-related research over five years. While that’s a fraction of Chinese investment, John Everett, deputy director of the Information Innovation Office at DARPA, told the podcast he is not worried about another Sputnik-style surprise.

“Within this $2 billion that we're spending, it's across a very wide range of projects — no two of which are alike — and so we're placing a lot of strategic bets on technologies that may emerge in the future,” Everett said. “A lot of the money that‘s going into the research in China seems to be going into pattern recognition. So they will be able to do incrementally better pattern recognition by spending an enormous amount of money on it. But there's a declining return to incremental expenditures.”

politico.com



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (31862)8/14/2019 6:52:02 AM
From: RetiredNow2 Recommendations

Recommended By
GROUND ZERO™
toccodolce

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 73841
 
And another thing. Keep in mind that we already know Google is actively working against the US and working with China on AI. But they are also undermining US elections and culture with their rampant censorship of conservative speech and their bias and skewing of news towards liberal viewpoints in their search results. When will our government do something to protect political speech from Google, Facebook, and Twitter, which are the totalitarian Socialists of our day? This is more insidious and damaging than what we faced in WWII, because this could end the US as we know it. Already, people at Google think Chinese governance is a better model than our US Republic. They are pushing that view on the rest of this country. Why doesn't anyone but Peter Thiel see that? We're in deep shit. This is like the Castros taking over Cuba and implementing Socialism there all over again, but here in the US, the Americans are too naive to see it and too arrogant in thinking it can't happen here. Wake the F up, everyone!

--------
"The Distortion Is Grotesque" - Google Insider Turns Over 950 Pages Documenting Bias To DoJ


Via SaraACarter.com,

A former Google insider claiming the company created algorithms to hide its political bias within artificial intelligence platforms – in effect targeting particular words, phrases and contexts to promote, alter, reference or manipulate perceptions of Internet content – delivered roughly 950 pages of documents to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust division Friday.



The former Google insider, who has already spoken in to the nonprofit organization Project Veritas, met with SaraACarter.com on several occasions last week. He was interviewed in silhouette, to conceal his identity, in group’s latest film, which they say exposes bias inside the social media platform.

Several weeks prior, the insider mailed a laptop to the DOJ containing the same information delivered on Friday, they said. The former insider is choosing to remain anonymous until Project Verita’s James O’Keefe reveals his identity tomorrow (Wednesday).

He told this reporter on his recent trip to Washington D.C. that the documents he turned over to the Justice Department will provide proof that Google has been manipulating the algorithms and the evidence of how it was done, the insider said.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai told the House Judiciary Committee in December, 2018, that the search engine was not biased against conservatives. Pichai explained what algorithm’s are said Google’s algorithm was not offensive to conservatives because its artificial intelligence does not operate in that manner. He told lawmakers, “things like relevance, freshness, popularity, how other people are using it” are what drives the search results. Pichai said even if his programmers were anti-Republican, the process is so intricate that the artificial intelligence could not be manipulated and it was to complicated to train the algorithm to fit their bias.

Google did not immediately respond for comment on the insider’s claims, however, this story will be updated if comment is provided.

The insider says Google is aware most people are unaware or not knowledgeable about these advanced IT systems and therefore unable to determine who is telling the truth.

    “I honestly think that a free market can fix this issue,” he told this reporter at a meeting in Washington D.C.
  • “The issue is that the free market has been distorted and what’s happened is that the distortion is so grotesque and the engineering is so repulsive, all we need to do is just expose what’s going on. People can hear that it is bad but that can be bias. But when they see what Google has actually written with the documents, this will actually be taught in universities of what totalitarian states can do with this type of capability.”
  • “It will be so revolting that it doesn’t matter what the solution is, a solution will just form as a reaction to this manipulation they have done,” the Google insider said.


He said he’s asked himself many times if he’s overreacting “and every time I simply look back at the documents and realize that I am not.”

“It’s that bad,” he said. “Disclosing Google’s own words to the American public is something I am, must do, if I am to consider myself a good person. The world that google is building is not a place I, or you or our children want to live in.”

Another Google insider, who has come forward already, told O’Keefe and other media outlets recently that it is the programers at Google who use the algorithms to manipulate the information to advance its leftist agenda.

Greg Coppola, a software engineer, told Project Veritas that he doesn’t “have a smoking gun.”

However, “I’ve just been coding since I was ten, I have a Ph.D., I have five years of experience at Google, and I just know how algorithms are. They don’t write themselves. We write them to make them do what we want them to do.”

  • “I look at Search and I look at Google News, and I see what it’s doing,” he said.
  • “I see Google executives go to Congress and say … that it’s not political, and I’m just so sure that that’s not true.”


Department of Justice officials declined to comment on the document dump.

But SaraACarter.com has reviewed the documents and obtained proof from the Google insider that the documents were delivered to the DOJ.

The unnamed Google insider first spoke to O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. O’Keefe has been criticized by the left for outing the political bias of executives and employees of Google and other social media companies.

In the nonprofits most recent video, Project Veritas uses their undercover techniques to get Google employees to talk openly about their disdain for Trump and how their artificial intelligence operates.

Jenn Gennai, who heads Google’s Responsible Innovation Team, did not know she was being filmed by O’Keefe’s group. She told the undercover journalist that “the reason we launched our AI principals is because we’re not putting our line in the sand. They were not saying what’s fair and what’s equitable so we’re like, well we’re a big company, we’re going to say it.”