Search icon CANCEL
Subscription
0
Cart icon
Your Cart (0 item)
Close icon
You have no products in your basket yet
Arrow left icon
Explore Products
Best Sellers
New Releases
Books
Videos
Audiobooks
Learning Hub
Free Learning
Arrow right icon

How-To Tutorials - News

104 Articles
article-image-google-confirms-it-paid-135-million-as-exit-packages-to-senior-execs-accused-of-sexual-harassment
Natasha Mathur
12 Mar 2019
4 min read
Save for later

Google confirms it paid $135 million as exit packages to senior execs accused of sexual harassment

Natasha Mathur
12 Mar 2019
4 min read
According to a complaint filed in a lawsuit yesterday, Google paid $135 million in total as exit packages to top two senior execs, namely Andy Rubin (creator of Android) and Amit Singhal (former senior VP of Google search) after they were accused of sexual misconduct in the company. The lawsuit was filed by an Alphabet shareholder, James Martin, in the Santa Clara, California Court. Google also confirmed paying the exit packages to senior execs to The Verge, yesterday. Speaking of the lawsuit, the complaint is against certain directors and officers of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, for their active and direct participation in “multi-year scheme” to hide sexual harassment and discrimination at Alphabet. It also states that the misconduct by these directors has caused severe financial and reputational damage to Alphabet. The exit packages for Rubin and Singhal were approved by the Leadership Development and Compensation Committee (LLDC). The news of Google paying high exit packages to its top execs first came to light last October, after the New York Times released a report on Google, stating that the firm paid $90 million to Rubin and $15 million to Singhal. Rubin had previously also received an offer for a $150 million stock grant, which he then further use to negotiate the $90 million in severance pay, even though he should have been fired for cause without any pay, states the lawsuit. To protest against the handling of sexual misconduct within Google, more than 20,000 Google employees along with vendors, and contractors, temps, organized Google “walkout for real change” and walked out of their offices in November 2018. Googlers also launched an industry-wide awareness campaign to fight against forced arbitration in January, where they shared information about arbitration on their Twitter and Instagram accounts throughout the day.   Last year in November, Google ended its forced arbitration ( a move that was soon followed by Facebook) for its employees (excluding temps, vendors, etc) and only in the case of sexual harassment. This led to contractors writing an open letter on Medium to Sundar Pichai, CEO, Google, in December, demanding him to address their demands of better conditions and equal benefits for contractors. In response to the Google walkout and the growing public pressure, Google finally decided to end its forced arbitration policy for all employees (including contractors) and for all kinds of discrimination within Google, last month. The changes will go into effect for all the Google employees starting March 21st, 2019. Yesterday, the Google walkout for real change group tweeted condemning the multi-million dollar payouts and has asked people to use the hashtag #Googlepayoutsforall to highlight other better ways that money could have been used. https://twitter.com/GoogleWalkout/status/1105450565193121792 “The conduct of Rubin and other executives was disgusting, illegal, immoral, degrading to women and contrary to every principle that Google claims it abides by”, reads the lawsuit. James Martin also filed a lawsuit against Alphabet’s board members, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Eric Schmidt earlier this year in January for covering up the sexual harassment allegations against the former top execs at Google. Martin had sued Alphabet for breaching its fiduciary duty to shareholders, unjust enrichment, abuse of power, and corporate waste. “The directors’ wrongful conduct allowed illegal conduct to proliferate and continue. As such, members of the Alphabet’s board were knowing direct enables of sexual harassment and discrimination”, reads the lawsuit. It also states that the board members not only violated the California and federal law but it also violated the ethical standards and guidelines set by Alphabet. Public reaction to the news is largely negative with people condemning Google’s handling of sexual misconduct: https://twitter.com/awesome/status/1105295877487263744 https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/1105456081663225856 https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/1105457965790707713 https://twitter.com/conradwt/status/1105386882135875584 https://twitter.com/mer__edith/status/1105464808831361025 For more information, check out the official lawsuit here. Recode Decode #GoogleWalkout interview shows why data and evidence don’t always lead to right decisions in even the world’s most data-driven company Liz Fong Jones, prominent ex-Googler shares her experience at Google and ‘grave concerns’ for the company Google’s pay equity analysis finds men, not women, are underpaid; critics call out design flaws in the analysis
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2480

article-image-top-announcements-from-the-tensorflow-dev-summit-2019
Sugandha Lahoti
08 Mar 2019
5 min read
Save for later

Top announcements from the TensorFlow Dev Summit 2019

Sugandha Lahoti
08 Mar 2019
5 min read
The two-days long TensorFlow Dev Summit 2019 just got over, leaving in its wake major updates being made to the TensorFlow ecosystem.  The major announcement included the release of the first alpha version of most coveted release TensorFlow 2.0. Also announced were, TensorFlow Lite 1.0, TensorFlow Federated, TensorFlow Privacy and more. TensorFlow Federated In a medium blog post, Alex Ingerman (Product Manager) and Krzys Ostrowski (Research Scientist) introduced the TensorFlow Federated framework on the first day. This open source framework is useful for experimenting with machine learning and other computations on decentralized data. As the name suggests, this framework uses Federated Learning, a learning approach introduced by Google in 2017. This technique enables ML models to collaboratively learn a shared prediction model while keeping all the training data on the device. Thus eliminating machine learning from the need to store the data in the cloud. The authors note that TFF is based on their experiences with developing federated learning technology at Google. TFF uses the Federated Learning API to express an ML model architecture, and then train it across data provided by multiple developers, while keeping each developer’s data separate and local. It also uses the Federated Core (FC) API, a set of lower-level primitives, which enables the expression of a broad range of computations over a decentralized dataset. The authors conclude, “With TFF, we are excited to put a flexible, open framework for locally simulating decentralized computations into the hands of all TensorFlow users. You can try out TFF in your browser, with just a few clicks, by walking through the tutorials.” TensorFlow 2.0.0- alpha0 The event also the release of the first alpha version of the TensorFlow 2.0 framework which came with fewer APIs. First introduced last year in August by Martin Wicke, engineer at Google, TensorFlow 2.0, is expected to come with: Easy model building with Keras and eager execution. Robust model deployment in production on any platform. Powerful experimentation for research. API simplification by reducing duplication removing deprecated endpoints. The first teaser,  TensorFlow 2.0.0- alpha0 version comes with the following changes: API clean-up included removing tf.app, tf.flags, and tf.logging in favor of absl-py. No more global variables with helper methods like tf.global_variables_initializer and tf.get_global_step. Functions, not sessions (tf.Session and session.run -> tf.function). Added support for TensorFlow Lite in TensorFlow 2.0. tf.contrib has been deprecated, and functionality has been either migrated to the core TensorFlow API, to tensorflow/addons, or removed entirely. Checkpoint breakage for RNNs and for Optimizers. Minor bug fixes have also been made to the Keras and Python API and tf.estimator. Read the full list of bug fixes in the changelog. TensorFlow Lite 1.0 The TF-Lite framework is basically designed to aid developers in deploying machine learning and artificial intelligence models on mobile and IoT devices. Lite was first introduced at the I/O developer conference in May 2017 and in developer preview later that year. At the TensorFlow Dev Summit, the team announced a new version of this framework, the TensorFlow Lite 1.0. According to a post by VentureBeat, improvements include selective registration and quantization during and after training for faster, smaller models. The team behind TF-Lite 1.0 says that quantization has helped them achieve up to 4 times compression of some models. TensorFlow Privacy Another interesting library released at the TensorFlow dev summit was TensorFlow Privacy. This Python-based open source library aids developers to train their machine-learning models with strong privacy guarantees. To achieve this, it takes inspiration from the principles of differential privacy. This technique offers strong mathematical guarantees that models do not learn or remember the details about any specific user when training the user data. TensorFlow Privacy includes implementations of TensorFlow optimizers for training machine learning models with differential privacy. For more information, you can go through the technical whitepaper describing its privacy mechanisms in more detail. The creators also note that “no expertise in privacy or its underlying mathematics should be required for using TensorFlow Privacy. Those using standard TensorFlow mechanisms should not have to change their model architectures, training procedures, or processes.” TensorFlow Replicator TF Replicator also released at the TensorFlow Dev Summit, is a software library that helps researchers deploy their TensorFlow models on GPUs and Cloud TPUs. To do this, the creators assure that developers would require minimal effort and need not have previous experience with distributed systems. For multi-GPU computation, TF-Replicator relies on an “in-graph replication” pattern, where the computation for each device is replicated in the same TensorFlow graph. When TF-Replicator builds an in-graph replicated computation, it first builds the computation for each device independently and leaves placeholders where cross-device computation has been specified by the user. Once the sub-graphs for all devices have been built, TF-Replicator connects them by replacing the placeholders with actual cross-device computation. For a more comprehensive description, you can go through the research paper. These were the top announcements made at the TensorFlow Dev Summit 2019. You can go through the Keynote and other videos of the announcements and tutorials on this YouTube playlist. TensorFlow 2.0 to be released soon with eager execution, removal of redundant APIs, tffunction and more. TensorFlow 2.0 is coming. Here’s what we can expect. Google introduces and open-sources Lingvo, a scalable TensorFlow framework for Sequence-to-Sequence Modeling
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2174

article-image-crypto-cash-is-missing-from-the-wallet-of-dead-cryptocurrency-entrepreneur-gerald-cotten-find-it-and-you-could-get-100000
Richard Gall
05 Mar 2019
3 min read
Save for later

Crypto-cash is missing from the wallet of dead cryptocurrency entrepreneur Gerald Cotten - find it, and you could get $100,000

Richard Gall
05 Mar 2019
3 min read
In theory, stealing cryptocurrency should be impossible. But a mystery has emerged that seems to throw all that into question and even suggests a bigger, much stranger conspiracy. Gerald Cotten, the founder of cryptocurrency exchange QadrigaCX, died in December in India. He was believed to have left $136 million USD worth of crypto-cash in 'cold wallets' on his own laptop, to which only he had access. However, investigators from EY, who have been working on closing QuadrigaCX following Cotten's death, were surprised to find that the wallets were empty. In fact, it's believed crypto-cash had disappeared from them months before Cotten died. A cryptocurrency mystery now involving the FBI The only lead in this mystery is the fact that the EY investigators have found other user accounts that appear to be linked to Gerald Cotten. There's a chance that Cotten used these to trade on his own exchange, but the nature of these exchanges remain a little unclear. To add to the intrigue, Fortune reported yesterday that the FBI are working with Canada's Mounted Police Force to investigate the missing money. This information came from Jesse Powell, CEO of another cryptocurrency company called Kraken. Powell told Fortune that both the FBI and the Mounted Police have been in touch with him about the mystery surrounding QuadrigaCX. Powell has offered a reward of $100,000 to anyone that can locate the missing cryptocurrency funds. So what actually happened to Gerald Cotten and his crypto-cash? The story has many layers of complexity. There are rumors that Cotten faked his own death. For example, Cotten filed a will just 12 days before his death, leaving a significant amount of wealth and assets to his wife. And while sources from the hospital in India where Cotten is believed to have died say he died of cardiac arrest, as Fortune explains, "Cotten’s body was handled by hotel staff after an embalmer refused to receive it" - something which is, at the very least, strange. It should be noted that there is certainly no clear evidence that Cotten faked his own death - only missing pieces that encourage such rumors. A further subplot - that might or night not be useful in cracking this case - emerged late last week when Canada's Globe and Mail reported that QuadrigaCX's co-founder has a history of identity theft and using digital currencies to launder money. Where could the money be? There are, as you might expect, no shortage of theories about where the cash could be. A few days ago, it was suggested that it might be possible to locate Cotten's Ethereum funds - a blog post by James Edwards, who is the editor of cryptocurrency blog zerononcense claimed that Ethereum linked to QuadrigaCX can be found in Bitfinex, Poloniex, and Jesse Powell's Kraken. "It appears that a significant amount of Ethereum (600,000+ ETH) was transferred to these exchanges as a means of ‘storage’ during the years that QuadrigaCX was in operation and offering Ethereum on their exchange," Edwards writes. Edwards is keen for his findings to be the starting point for a clearer line of inquiry, free from speculation and conspiracy. He wrote that he hoped that it would be "a helpful addition to the QuadrigaCX narrative, rather than a conspiratorial piece that speculates on whether the exchange or its owners have been honest."
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2328
Banner background image

article-image-highlights-from-jack-dorseys-live-interview-by-kara-swisher-on-twitter-on-lack-of-diversity-tech-responsibility-physical-safety-and-more
Natasha Mathur
14 Feb 2019
7 min read
Save for later

Highlights from Jack Dorsey’s live interview by Kara Swisher on Twitter: on lack of diversity, tech responsibility, physical safety and more

Natasha Mathur
14 Feb 2019
7 min read
Kara Swisher, Recode co-founder, interviewed Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, yesterday over Twitter. The interview ( or ‘Twitterview’)  was conducted in tweets using the hashtag #KaraJack. It started at 5 pm ET and lasted for around 90-minutes. Let’s have a look at the top highlights from the interview. https://twitter.com/karaswisher/status/1095440667373899776 On Fixing what is broke on Social Media and Physical safety Swisher asked Dorsey why he isn’t moving faster in his efforts to fix the disaster that has been caused so far on social media. To this Dorsey replied that Twitter was trying to do “too much” in the past but that they have become better at prioritizing now. The number one focus for them now is a person’s “physical safety” i.e. the offline ramifications for Twitter users off the platform. “What people do offline with what they see online”, says Dorsey. Some examples of ‘offline ramifications’ being “doxxing” (harassment technique that reveals a person’s personal information on the internet) and coordinated harassment campaigns. Dorsey further added that replies, searches, trends, mentions on Twitter are where most of the abuse happens and are the shared spaces people take advantage of. “We need to put our physical safety above all else. We don’t have all the answers just yet. But that’s the focus. I think it clarifies a lot of the work we need to do. Not all of it of course”, said Dorsey. On Tech responsibility and improving the health of digital conversation on Twitter When Swisher asked Dorsey what grading would he give to Silicon Valley and himself for embodying tech responsibility, he replied with “C” for himself. He said that Twitter has made progress but it’s scattered and ‘not felt enough’. He did not comment on what he thought of Silicon Valley’s work in this area. Swisher further highlighted that the goal of improving Twitter conversations have only remained empty talk so far. She asked Dorsey if Twitter has made any actual progress in the last 18-24 months when it comes to addressing the issues regarding the “health of conversation” (which eventually plays into safety). Dorsey said these issues are the most important thing right now that they need to fix and it’s a failure on Twitter’s part to ‘put the burden on victims’. He did not share a specific example of improvements made to the platform to further this goal. Swisher then questioned him on how he intends on fixing the issue, Dorsey mentioned that: Twitter intends to be more proactive when it comes to enforcing healthy conversations so that reporting/blocking becomes the last resort. He mentioned that Twitter takes actions against all offenders who go against its policies but that the system works reactively to someone who reports it. “If they don’t report, we don’t see it. Doesn’t scale. Hence the need to focus on proactive”, said Dorsey. Since Twitter is constantly evolving its policies to address the ‘current issues’, it's rooting these in fundamental human rights (UN) and is making physical safety the top priority alongside privacy. On lack of diversity https://twitter.com/jack/status/1095459084785004544 Swisher questioned Dorsey on his negligence towards addressing the issues. “I think it is because many of the people who made Twitter never ever felt unsafe,” adds Swisher. Dorsey admits that the “lack of diversity” didn’t help with the empathy of what people (especially women) experience on Twitter every day. He further adds that Twitter should be reflective of the people that it’s trying to serve, which is why they established a trust and safety council to get feedback. Swisher then asks him to provide three concrete examples of what Twitter has done to fix this. Dorsey mentioned that Twitter has: evolved its policies ( eg; misgendering policy). prioritized proactive enforcement by using machine learning to downrank bad actors, meaning, they'll look at the probability of abuse from any one account. This is because if someone else is abusing one account then they’re probably doing the same on other accounts. Given more user control in a product, such as muting of accounts with no profile picture, etc. More focus on coordinated behavior/gaming. On Dorsey’s dual CEO role Swisher asked him why he insists on being the CEO of two publicly traded companies (Twitter and Square Inc.) that both require maximum effort at the same time. Dorsey said that his main focus is on building leadership in both and that it’s not his ambition to be CEO of multiple companies “just for the sake of that”. She further questioned him if he has any plans in mind to hire someone as his “number 2”. Dorsey said it’s better to spread that kind of responsibility across several people as it reduces dependencies and the company gets more options for future leadership. “I’m doing everything I can to help both. Effort doesn’t come down to one person. It’s a team”, he said. On Twitter breaks, Donald Trump and Elon Musk When initially asked about what Dorsey feels about people not feeling good after being for a while on Twitter, he said he feels “terrible” and that it's depressing. https://twitter.com/jack/status/1095457041844334593 “We made something with one intent. The world showed us how it wanted to use it. A lot has been great. A lot has been unexpected. A lot has been negative. We weren’t fast enough to observe, learn, and improve”, said Dorsey. He further added that he does not feel good about how Twitter tends to incentivize outrage, fast takes, short term thinking, echo chambers, and fragmented conversations. Swisher then questioned Dorsey on whether Twitter has ever intended on suspending Donald Trump and if Twitter’s business/engagement would suffer when Trump is no longer the president. Dorsey replied that Twitter is independent of any account or person and that although the number of politics conversations has increased on Twitter, that’s just one experience. He further added that Twitter is ready for 2020 elections and that it has partnered up with government agencies to improve communication around threats. https://twitter.com/jack/status/1095462610462433280 Moreover, on being asked about the most exciting influential on Twitter, Dorsey replied with Elon Musk. He said he likes how Elon is focused on solving existential problems and sharing his thinking openly. On being asked he thought of how Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is using Twitter, he replied that she is ‘mastering the medium’. Although Swisher managed to interview Dorsey over Twitter, the ‘Twitterview’ got quite confusing soon and went out of order. The conversations seemed all over the place and as Kurt Wagner, tech journalist from Recode puts it, “in order to find a permanent thread of the chat, you had to visit one of either Kara or Jack’s pages and continually refresh”. This made for a difficult experience overall and points towards the current flaws within the conversation system on Twitter. Many users tweeted out their opinion regarding the same: https://twitter.com/RTKumaraSwamy/status/1095542363890446336 https://twitter.com/waltmossberg/status/1095454665305739264 https://twitter.com/kayvz/status/1095472789870436352 https://twitter.com/sukienniko/status/1095520835861864448 https://twitter.com/LauraGaviriaH/status/1095641232058011648 Recode Decode #GoogleWalkout interview shows why data and evidence don’t always lead to right decisions in even the world’s most data-driven company Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey slammed by users after a photo of him holding ‘smash Brahminical patriarchy’ poster went viral Jack Dorsey discusses the rumored ‘edit tweet’ button and tells users to stop caring about followers
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3480

article-image-googlers-launch-industry-wide-awareness-campaign-to-fight-against-forced-arbitration
Natasha Mathur
17 Jan 2019
6 min read
Save for later

Googlers launch industry-wide awareness campaign to fight against forced arbitration

Natasha Mathur
17 Jan 2019
6 min read
A group of Googlers launched a public awareness social media campaign from 9 AM to 6 PM EST yesterday. The group, called, ‘Googlers for ending forced arbitration’ shared information about arbitration on their Twitter and Instagram accounts throughout the day. https://twitter.com/endforcedarb/status/1084813222505410560 The group tweeted out yesterday, as part of the campaign, that in surveying employees of 30+ tech companies and 10+ common Temp/Contractor suppliers in the industry, none of them could meet the three primary criteria needed for a transparent workplace. The three basic criteria include: optional arbitration policy for all employees and for all forms of discrimination (including contractors/temps), no class action waivers, and no gag rule that keeps arbitration hearings proceedings confidential. The group shared some hard facts about Arbitration and also busted myths regarding the same. Let’s have a look at some of the key highlights from yesterday’s campaign. At least 60 million Americans are forced to use arbitration The group states that the implementation of forced arbitration policy has grown significantly in the past seven years. Over 65% of the companies consisting of 1,000 or more employees, now have mandatory arbitration procedures. Employees don’t have an option to take their employers to court in cases of harassment or discrimination. People of colour and women are often the ones who get affected the most by this practice.           How employers use forced Arbitration Forced arbitration is extremely unfair Arbitration firms that are hired by the companies usually always favour the companies over its employees. This is due to the fear of being rejected the next time by an employer lest the arbitration firm decides to favour the employee. The group states that employees are 1.7 times more likely to win in Federal courts and 2.6 times more likely to win in state courts than in arbitration.   There are no public filings of the complaint details, meaning that the company won’t have anyone to answer to regarding the issues within the organization. The company can also limit its obligation when it comes to disclosing the evidence that you need to prove your case.   Arbitration hearings happen behind closed doors within a company When it comes to arbitration hearings, it's just an employee and their lawyer, other party and their lawyer, along with a panel of one to three arbitrators. Each party gets to pick one arbitrator each, who is also hired by your employers. However, there’s usually only a single arbitrator panel involved as three-arbitrator panel costs five times more than a single arbitrator panel, as per the American Arbitration Association. Forced Arbitration requires employees to sign away their right to class action lawsuits at the start of the employment itself The group states that irrespective of having legal disputes or not, forced arbitration bans employees from coming together as a group in case of arbitration as well as in case of class action lawsuits. Most employers also practice “gag rule” which restricts the employee to even talk about their experience with the arbitration policy. There are certain companies that do give you an option to opt out of forced arbitration using an opt-out form but comes with a time constraint depending on your agreement with that company. For instance, companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Adecco give their employees a chance to opt out of forced arbitration.                                                  Arbitration opt-out option JAMS and AAA are among the top arbitration organizations used by major tech giants JAMS, Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, is a private company that is used by employers like Google, Airbnb, Uber, Tesla, and VMware. JAMS does not publicly disclose the diversity of its arbitrators. Similarly, AAA, America Arbitration Association, is a non-profit organization where usually retired judges or lawyers serve as arbitrators. Arbitrators in AAA have an overall composition of 24% women and minorities. AAA is one of the largest arbitration organizations used by companies such as Facebook, Lyft, Oracle, Samsung, and Two Sigma.   Katherine Stone, a professor from UCLA law school, states that the procedure followed by these arbitration firms don’t allow much discovery. What this means is that these firms don’t usually permit depositions or various kinds of document exchange before the hearing. “So, the worker goes into the hearing...armed with nothing, other than their own individual grievances, their own individual complaints, and their own individual experience. They can’t learn about the experience of others,” says Stone. Female workers and African-American workers are most likely to suffer from forced arbitration 58% female workers and 59% African American workers face mandatory arbitration depending on the workgroups. For instance, in the construction industry, which is a highly male-dominated industry, the imposition of forced arbitration is at the lowest rate. But, in the education and health industries, which has the majority of the female workforce, the imposition rate of forced arbitration is high.                                 Forced Arbitration rate among different workgroups Supreme Court has gradually allowed companies to expand arbitration to employees & consumers The group states that the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) had legalized arbitration between shipping companies in cases of settling commercial disputes. The supreme court, however, expanded this practice of arbitration to companies too.                                                   Supreme court decisions Apart from sharing these facts, the group also shed insight on dos and don’t that employees should follow under forced arbitration clauses.                                                      Dos and Dont’s The social media campaign by Googlers for forced arbitration represents an upsurge in the strength and courage among the employees within the tech industry as not just the Google employees but also employees from different tech companies shared their experience regarding forced arbitration. The group had researched academic institutions, labour attorneys, advocacy groups, etc, and the contracts of around 30 major tech companies, as a part of the campaign. To follow all the highlights from the campaign, follow the End Forced Arbitration Twitter account. Shareholders sue Alphabet’s board members for protecting senior execs accused of sexual harassment Recode Decode #GoogleWalkout interview shows why data and evidence don’t always lead to right decisions in even the world’s most data-driven company Tech Workers Coalition volunteers talk unionization and solidarity in Silicon Valley
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2619

article-image-ces-2019-is-bullshit-we-dont-need-after-2018s-techlash
Richard Gall
08 Jan 2019
6 min read
Save for later

CES 2019 is bullshit we don't need after 2018's techlash

Richard Gall
08 Jan 2019
6 min read
The asinine charade that is CES is running in Las Vegas this week. Describing itself as 'the global stage of innovation', CES attempts to set the agenda for a new year in tech. While ostensibly it's an opportunity to see how technology might impact the lives of all of us over the next decade (or more), it is, in truth, a vapid carnival that does nothing but make the technology industry look stupid. Okay, perhaps I'm being a fun sponge: what's wrong with smart doorbells, internet connected planks of wood and other madcap ideas? Well, nothing really - but those inventions are only the tip of the iceberg. Disagree? Don't worry: you can find the biggest announcements from day one of CES 2019 here. What CES gets wrong Where CES really gets it wrong - and where it drives down a dead end of vacuity - is how it showcases the mind numbing rush to productize and then commercialize some of the really serious developments that could transform the world in a way that is ultimately far less trivial than the glitz and glamor of the way it is presented in the media would suggest. This isn't to say that there there won't be important news and interesting discussions to come out of CES. But even the more interesting topics can be diluted, becoming buzzwords for marketers to latch onto. As Wired remarks on Twitter, "the term AI-powered is used loosely and is almost always a marketing ploy, whether or not a product is impacted by AI." In the same thread, the publication's account also notes that 5G, another big theme for the event, won't be widely available for at least another 12 months. https://twitter.com/WIRED/status/1082294957979910144 Ultimately, what this tells us is that the focus of CES isn't really technology - not in the sense of how we build it and how we should use it. Instead, it is an event dedicated to the ways we can sell it. Perhaps in previous years, the gleeful excitement of CES was nothing but a bit of light as we recover from the holiday period. But this year it's different. 2018 was a year of reckoning in tech, as a range of scandals emerged that underlined the ways in which exciting technological innovation can be misused and deployed against the very people we assume it should be helping. From the Cambridge Analytica scandal to the controversy surrounding Amazon's Rekognition, Google's Project Dragonfly, and Microsoft's relationship with ICE, 2018 was a year that made it clearer than ever that buried somewhere beneath novel and amusing inventions, and better quality television screens are a set of interests that have little interest in making life better for people. The corporate glamor of CES 2019 is just kitsch It's not news that there are certain organisations and institutions that don't have the interests of the majority at heart. But CES 2019 does take on a new complexion in the shadow of all that has happened in 2019. The question 'what's the point of all this' takes on a more serious edge. When you add in the dissent that has come from a growing part of the Silicon Valley workforce, CES 2019 starts to look like an event that, much like many industry leaders, wants to bury the messy and complex reality of building software in favor of marketing buzz. In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, the author Milan Kundera describes kitsch as "the absolute denial of shit." It's following this definition that you can see CES as a kitsch event. This is because the it pushes the decisions and inevitable trade offs that go into developing new technologies and products into the shadows. It doesn't take negative consequences seriously. It's all just 'shit' that should be ignored. This all adds up to a message that seems to be: better doesn't even need to be built. It's here already, no risks, no challenges. Developers don't really feature at CES. That's not necessarily a problem - after all, it's not an event for them, and what developer wants to spend time hearing marketers talk about AI? But if 2018 has taught us anything, it's that a culture of commercialization that refuses to consider consequences other than what can be done in the service of business growth can be immensely damaging. It hurts people, and it might even be hurting democracy. Okay, the way to correct things probably isn't to simply invite more engineers to CES. But by the same token, CES is hardly helping things either. Everything important is happening outside the event Everything important seems to be happening at the periphery of this year's CES, in some instances quite literally outside the building. Apple's ad, for example, might have been a clever piece of branding, but it has captured the attention of the world. Arguably, it's more memorable than much of what's happening inside the event. And although it's possible to be cynical, it does nevertheless raise important questions about a number of companies attitudes to user data. https://twitter.com/NateIngraham/status/1081612316532064257 Another big talking point as this year's event began is who isn't present. Due to the government shutdown a number of officials that were due to attend and speak have had to cancel. This acts as a reminder of the wider context in which CES 2019 is taking place, in which a nativist government looks set on controlling controlling who and how people move across borders. It also highlights how euphemistic the phrase 'consumer technology' really is. TVs and cloud connected toilets might take the headlines, but its government surveillance that will likely have the biggest impact on our lives in the future. Not that any of this seemed to matter to Gary Shapiro, the Chief Executive of the Consumer Technology Association (the organization that puts on CES). Speaking to the BBC, Shapiro said: “It’s embarrassing to be on the world stage with a dominant event in the world of technology, and our federal government... can't be there to host their colleague government executives from around the world.” Shapiro's frustration is understandable from an organizer's perspective. But it also betrays the apparent ethos of CES: what's happening outside doesn't matter. We all deserve better than CES 2019 The new products on show at CES 2019 won't make everything better. There's a chance they will make everything worse. Arguably, the more blindly optimistic we are that they'll make things better, the more likely they are to make things worse. It's only by thinking through complex questions, and taking time to consider the possible consequences of our decision making as developers, product managers, or business people that we can actually be sure that things will get better. This doesn't mean we need to stop getting excited about new inventions and innovations. But things like smart cities and driverless cars pose a whole range of issues that shouldn't be buried in the optimistic schmaltz of events like CES. They need care and attention from policy makers, designers, software engineers, and many others to ensure they are actually going to help to build a better world for people.
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2503
Unlock access to the largest independent learning library in Tech for FREE!
Get unlimited access to 7500+ expert-authored eBooks and video courses covering every tech area you can think of.
Renews at $19.99/month. Cancel anytime
article-image-quantum-computing-edge-analytics-and-meta-learning-key-trends-in-data-science-and-big-data-in-2019
Richard Gall
18 Dec 2018
11 min read
Save for later

Quantum computing, edge analytics, and meta learning: key trends in data science and big data in 2019

Richard Gall
18 Dec 2018
11 min read
When historians study contemporary notions of data in the early 21st century, 2018 might well be a landmark year. In many ways this was the year when Big and Important Issues - from the personal to the political - began to surface. The techlash, a term which has defined the year, arguably emerged from conversations and debates about the uses and abuses of data. But while cynicism casts a shadow on the brightly lit data science landcape, there’s still a lot of optimism out there. And more importantly, data isn’t going to drop off the agenda any time soon. However, the changing conversation in 2018 does mean that the way data scientists, analysts, and engineers use data and build solutions for it will change. A renewed emphasis on ethics and security is now appearing, which will likely shape 2019 trends. But what will these trends be? Let’s take a look at some of the most important areas to keep an eye on in the new year. Meta learning and automated machine learning One of the key themes of data science and artificial intelligence in 2019 will be doing more with less. There are a number of ways in which this will manifest itself. The first is meta learning. This is a concept that aims to improve the way that machine learning systems actually work by running machine learning on machine learning systems. Essentially this allows a machine learning algorithm to learn how to learn. By doing this, you can better decide which algorithm is most appropriate for a given problem. Find out how to put meta learning into practice. Learn with Hands On Meta Learning with Python. Automated machine learning is closely aligned with meta learning. One way of understanding it is to see it as putting the concept of automating the application of meta learning. So, if meta learning can help better determine which machine learning algorithms should be applied and how they should be designed, automated machine learning makes that process a little smoother. It builds the decision making into the machine learning solution. Fundamentally, it’s all about “algorithm selection, hyper-parameter tuning, iterative modelling, and model assessment,” as Matthew Mayo explains on KDNuggets. Automated machine learning tools What’s particularly exciting about automated machine learning is that there are already a number of tools that make it relatively easy to do. AutoML is a set of tools developed by Google that can be used on the Google Cloud Platform, while auto-sklearn, built around the scikit-learn library, provides a similar out of the box solution for automated machine learning. Although both AutoML and auto-sklearn are very new, there are newer tools available that could dominate the landscape: AutoKeras and AdaNet. AutoKeras is built on Keras (the Python neural network library), while AdaNet is built on TensorFlow. Both could be more affordable open source alternatives to AutoML. Whichever automated machine learning library gains the most popularity will remain to be seen, but one thing is certain: it makes deep learning accessible to many organizations who previously wouldn’t have had the resources or inclination to hire a team of PhD computer scientists. But it’s important to remember that automated machine learning certainly doesn’t mean automated data science. While tools like AutoML will help many organizations build deep learning models for basic tasks, for organizations that need a more developed data strategy, the role of the data scientist will remain vital. You can’t after all, automate away strategy and decision making. Learn automated machine learning with these titles: Hands-On Automated Machine Learning TensorFlow 1.x Deep Learning Cookbook         Quantum computing Quantum computing, even as a concept, feels almost fantastical. It's not just cutting-edge, it's mind-bending. But in real-world terms it also continues the theme of doing more with less. Explaining quantum computing can be tricky, but the fundamentals are this: instead of a binary system (the foundation of computing as we currently know it), which can be either 0 or 1, in a quantum system you have qubits, which can be 0, 1 or both simultaneously. (If you want to learn more, read this article). What Quantum computing means for developers So, what does this mean in practice? Essentially, because the qubits in a quantum system can be multiple things at the same time, you are then able to run much more complex computations. Think about the difference in scale: running a deep learning system on a binary system has clear limits. Yes, you can scale up in processing power, but you’re nevertheless constrained by the foundational fact of zeros and ones. In a quantum system where that restriction no longer exists, the scale of the computing power at your disposal increases astronomically. Once you understand the fundamental proposition, it becomes much easier to see why the likes of IBM and Google are clamouring to develop and deploy quantum technology. One of the most talked about use cases is using Quantum computers to find even larger prime numbers (a move which contains risks given prime numbers are the basis for much modern encryption). But there other applications, such as in chemistry, where complex subatomic interactions are too detailed to be modelled by a traditional computer. It’s important to note that Quantum computing is still very much in its infancy. While Google and IBM are leading the way, they are really only researching the area. It certainly hasn’t been deployed or applied in any significant or sustained way. But this isn’t to say that it should be ignored. It’s going to have a huge impact on the future, and more importantly it’s plain interesting. Even if you don’t think you’ll be getting to grips with quantum systems at work for some time (a decade at best), understanding the principles and how it works in practice will not only give you a solid foundation for major changes in the future, it will also help you better understand some of the existing challenges in scientific computing. And, of course, it will also make you a decent conversationalist at dinner parties. Who's driving Quantum computing forward? If you want to get started, Microsoft has put together the Quantum Development Kit, which includes the first quantum-specific programming language Q#. IBM, meanwhile, has developed its own Quantum experience, which allows engineers and researchers to run quantum computations in the IBM cloud. As you investigate these tools you’ll probably get the sense that no one’s quite sure what to do with these technologies. And that’s fine - if anything it makes it the perfect time to get involved and help further research and thinking on the topic. Get a head start in the Quantum Computing revolution. Pre-order Mastering Quantum Computing with IBM QX.           Edge analytics and digital twins While Quantum lingers on the horizon, the concept of the edge has quietly planted itself at the very center of the IoT revolution. IoT might still be the term that business leaders and, indeed, wider society are talking about, for technologists and engineers, none of its advantages would be possible without the edge. Edge computing or edge analytics is essentially about processing data at the edge of a network rather than within a centralized data warehouse. Again, as you can begin to see, the concept of the edge allows you to do more with less. More speed, less bandwidth (as devices no longer need to communicate with data centers), and, in theory, more data. In the context of IoT, where just about every object in existence could be a source of data, moving processing and analytics to the edge can only be a good thing. Will the edge replace the cloud? There's a lot of conversation about whether edge will replace cloud. It won't. But it probably will replace the cloud as the place where we run artificial intelligence. For example, instead of running powerful analytics models in a centralized space, you can run them at different points across the network. This will dramatically improve speed and performance, particularly for those applications that run on artificial intelligence. A more distributed world Think of it this way: just as software has become more distributed in the last few years, thanks to the emergence of the edge, data itself is going to be more distributed. We'll have billions of pockets of activity, whether from consumers or industrial machines, a locus of data-generation. Find out how to put the principles of edge analytics into practice: Azure IoT Development Cookbook Digital twins An emerging part of the edge computing and analytics trend is the concept of digital twins. This is, admittedly, still something in its infancy, but in 2019 it’s likely that you’ll be hearing a lot more about digital twins. A digital twin is a digital replica of a device that engineers and software architects can monitor, model and test. For example, if you have a digital twin of a machine, you could run tests on it to better understand its points of failure. You could also investigate ways you could make the machine more efficient. More importantly, a digital twin can be used to help engineers manage the relationship between centralized cloud and systems at the edge - the digital twin is essentially a layer of abstraction that allows you to better understand what’s happening at the edge without needing to go into the detail of the system. For those of us working in data science, digital twins provide better clarity and visibility on how disconnected aspects of a network interact. If we’re going to make 2019 the year we use data more intelligently - maybe even more humanely - then this is precisely the sort of thing we need. Interpretability, explainability, and ethics Doing more with less might be one of the ongoing themes in data science and big data in 2019, but we can’t ignore the fact that ethics and security will remain firmly on the agenda. Although it’s easy to dismiss these issues issues as separate from the technical aspects of data mining, processing, and analytics, but it is, in fact, deeply integrated into it. One of the key facets of ethics are two related concepts: explainability and interpretability. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but there are some subtle differences. Explainability is the extent to which the inner-working of an algorithm can be explained in human terms, while interpretability is the extent to which one can understand the way in which it is working (eg. predict the outcome in a given situation). So, an algorithm can be interpretable, but you might not quite be able to explain why something is happening. (Think about this in the context of scientific research: sometimes, scientists know that a thing is definitely happening, but they can’t provide a clear explanation for why it is.) Improving transparency and accountability Either way, interpretability and explainability are important because they can help to improve transparency in machine learning and deep learning algorithms. In a world where deep learning algorithms are being applied to problems in areas from medicine to justice - where the problem of accountability is particularly fraught - this transparency isn’t an option, it’s essential. In practice, this means engineers must tweak the algorithm development process to make it easier for those outside the process to understand why certain things are happening and why they aren't. To a certain extent, this ultimately requires the data science world to take the scientific method more seriously than it has done. Rather than just aiming for accuracy (which is itself often open to contestation), the aim is to constantly manage that gap between what we’re trying to achieve with an algorithm and how it goes about actually doing that. You can learn the basics of building explainable machine learning models in the Getting Started with Machine Learning in Python video.          Transparency and innovation must go hand in hand in 2019 So, there are two fundamental things for data science in 2019: improving efficiency, and improving transparency. Although the two concepts might look like the conflict with each other, it's actually a bit of a false dichotomy. If we realised that 12 months ago, we might have avoided many of the issues that have come to light this year. Transparency has to be a core consideration for anyone developing systems for analyzing and processing data. Without it, the work your doing might be flawed or unnecessary. You’re only going to need to add further iterations to rectify your mistakes or modify the impact of your biases. With this in mind, now is the time to learn the lessons of 2018’s techlash. We need to commit to stopping the miserable conveyor belt of scandal and failure. Now is the time to find new ways to build better artificial intelligence systems.
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 6816

article-image-troll-patrol-report-amnesty-international-and-element-ai-use-machine-learning-to-understand-online-abuse-against-women
Sugandha Lahoti
18 Dec 2018
5 min read
Save for later

Troll Patrol Report: Amnesty International and Element AI use machine learning to understand online abuse against women

Sugandha Lahoti
18 Dec 2018
5 min read
Amnesty International has partnered with Element AI to release a Troll Patrol report on the online abuse against women on Twitter. This finding was a part of their Troll patrol project which invites human rights researchers, technical experts, and online volunteers to build a crowd-sourced dataset of online abuse against women.   https://twitter.com/amnesty/status/1074946094633836544 Abuse of women on social media websites has been rising at an unprecedented rate. Social media websites have a responsibility to respect human rights and to ensure that women using the platform are able to express themselves freely and without fear. However, this has not been the case with Twitter and Amnesty has unearthed certain discoveries. Amnesty’s methodology was powered by machine learning Amnesty and Element AI surveyed 778 journalists and politicians from the UK and US throughout 2017 and then use machine learning techniques to qualitatively analyze abuse against women. The first process was to design large, unbiased dataset of tweets mentioning 778 women politicians and journalists from the UK and US. Next, over 6,500 volunteers (aged between 18 to 70 years old and from over 150 countries) analyzed 288,000 unique tweets to create a labeled dataset of abusive or problematic content. This was based on simple questions such as if the tweets were abusive or problematic, and if so, whether they revealed misogynistic, homophobic or racist abuse or other types of violence. Three experts also categorized a sample of 1,000 tweets to assess the quality of the tweets labeled by digital volunteers. Element AI used data science specifically using a subset of the Decoders and experts’ categorization of the tweets, to extrapolate the abuse analysis. Key findings from the report Per the findings of the Troll Patrol report, 7.1% of tweets sent to the women in the study were “problematic” or “abusive”. This amounts to 1.1 million tweets mentioning 778 women across the year, or one every 30 seconds. Women of color, (black, Asian, Latinx and mixed-race women) were 34% more likely to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets than white women. Black women were disproportionately targeted, being 84% more likely than white women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets. Source: Amnesty Online abuse targets women from across the political spectrum faced similar levels of online abuse and both liberals and conservatives alike, as well as left and right-leaning media organizations, were targeted. Source: Amnesty   What does this mean for people in tech Social media organizations are repeatedly failing in their responsibility to protect women’s rights online. They fall short of adequately investigating and responding to reports of violence and abuse in a transparent manner which leads many women to silence or censor themselves on the platform. Such abuses also hinder the freedom of expression online and also undermines women’s mobilization for equality and justice, particularly those groups who already face discrimination and marginalization. What can tech platforms do? One of the recommendations of the report is that social media platforms should publicly share comprehensive and meaningful information about reports of violence and abuse against women, as well as other groups, on their platforms. They should also talk in detail about how they are responding to it. Although Twitter and other platforms are using machine learning for content moderation and flagging, they should be transparent about the algorithms they use. They should publish information about training data, methodologies, moderation policies and technical trade-offs (such as between greater precision or recall) for public scrutiny. Machine learning automation should ideally be part of a larger content moderation system characterized by human judgment, greater transparency, rights of appeal and other safeguards. Amnesty in collaboration with Element AI also developed a machine learning model to better understand the potential and risks of using machine learning in content moderation systems. This model was able to achieve results comparable to their digital volunteers at predicting abuse, although it is ‘far from perfect still’, Amnesty notes. It achieves about a 50% accuracy level when compared to the judgment of experts. It was able to correctly identify 2 in every 14 tweets as abusive or problematic in comparison to experts who identified 1 in every 14 tweets as abusive or problematic. “Troll Patrol isn’t about policing Twitter or forcing it to remove content. We are asking it to be more transparent, and we hope that the findings from Troll Patrol will compel it to make that change. Crucially, Twitter must start being transparent about how exactly they are using machine learning to detect abuse, and publish technical information about the algorithms they rely on”. said Milena Marin senior advisor for tactical research at Amnesty International. Read more: The full list of Amnesty’s recommendations to Twitter. People on Twitter (the irony) are shocked at the release of Amnesty’s report and #ToxicTwitter is trending. https://twitter.com/gregorystorer/status/1074959864458178561 https://twitter.com/blimundaseyes/status/1074954027287396354 https://twitter.com/MikeWLink/status/1074500992266354688 https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1074949593438265344 Check out the full Troll Patrol report on Amnesty. Also, check out their machine learning based methodology in detail. Amnesty International takes on Google over Chinese censored search engine, Project Dragonfly. Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey slammed by users after a photo of him holding ‘smash Brahminical patriarchy’ poster went viral Twitter plans to disable the ‘like’ button to promote healthy conversations; should retweet be removed instead?
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2892

article-image-nvidia-demos-a-style-based-generative-adversarial-network-that-can-generate-extremely-realistic-images-has-ml-community-enthralled
Prasad Ramesh
17 Dec 2018
4 min read
Save for later

NVIDIA demos a style-based generative adversarial network that can generate extremely realistic images; has ML community enthralled

Prasad Ramesh
17 Dec 2018
4 min read
In a paper published last week, NVIDIA researchers come up with a way to generate photos that look like they were clicked with a camera. This is done via using generative adversarial networks (GANs). An alternative architecture for GANs Borrowing from style transfer literature, the researchers use an alternative generator architecture for GANs. The new architecture induces an automatically learned unsupervised separation of high-level attributes of an image. These attributes can be pose or identity of a person. Images generated via the architecture have some stochastic variation applied to them like freckles, hair placement etc. The architecture allows intuitive and scale-specific control of the synthesis to generate different variations of images. Better image quality than a traditional GAN This new generator is better than the state-of-the-art with respect to image quality, the images have better interpolation properties and disentangles the latent variation factors better. In order to quantify the interpolation quality and disentanglement, the researchers propose two new automated methods which are applicable to any generator architecture. They use a new high quality, highly varied data set with human faces. With motivation from transfer literature, NVIDIA researchers re-design the generator architecture to expose novel ways of controlling image synthesis. The generator starts from a learned constant input and adjusts the style of an image at each convolution layer. It makes the changes based on the latent code thereby having direct control over the strength of image features across different scales. When noise is injected directly into the network, this architectural change causes automatic separation of high-level attributes in an unsupervised manner. Source: A Style-Based Generator Architecture for Generative Adversarial Networks In other words, the architecture combines different images, their attributes from the dataset, applies some variations to synthesize images that look real. As proven in the paper, surprisingly, the redesign of images does not compromise image quality but instead improves it considerably. In conclusion with other works, a traditional GAN generator architecture is inferior to a style-based design. Not only human faces but they also generate bedrooms, cars, and cats with this new architecture. Public reactions This synthetic image generation has generated excitement among the public. A comment from Hacker News reads: “This is just phenomenal. Can see this being a fairly disruptive force in the media industry. Also, sock puppet factories could use this to create endless numbers of fake personas for social media astroturfing.” Another comment reads: “The improvements in GANs from 2014 are amazing. From coarse 32x32 pixel images, we have gotten to 1024x1024 images that can fool most humans.” Fake photographic images as evidence? As a thread on Twitter suggests, can this be the end of photography as evidence? Not very likely, at least for the time being. For something to be considered as evidence, there are many poses, for example, a specific person doing a specific action. As seen from the results in tha paper, some cat images are ugly and deformed, far from looking like the real thing. Also “Our training time is approximately one week on an NVIDIA DGX-1 with 8 Tesla V100 GPUs” now that a setup that costs up to $70K. Besides, some speculate that there will be bills in 2019 to control the use of such AI systems: https://twitter.com/BobbyChesney/status/1074046157431717894 Even the big names in AI are noticing this paper: https://twitter.com/goodfellow_ian/status/1073294920046145537 You can see a video showcasing the generated images on YouTube. This AI generated animation can dress like humans using deep reinforcement learning DeepMasterPrints: ‘master key’ fingerprints made by a neural network can now fake fingerprints UK researchers have developed a new PyTorch framework for preserving privacy in deep learning
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 6417

article-image-the-cruelty-of-algorithms-heartbreaking-open-letter-criticizes-tech-companies-for-showing-baby-ads-after-stillbirth
Bhagyashree R
13 Dec 2018
3 min read
Save for later

The cruelty of algorithms: Heartbreaking open letter criticizes tech companies for showing baby ads after stillbirth

Bhagyashree R
13 Dec 2018
3 min read
2018 has thrown up a huge range of examples of the unintended consequences of algorithms. From the ACLU’s research in July which showed how the algorithm in Amazon’s facial recognition software incorrectly matched images of congress members with mugshots, to the same organization’s sexist algorithm used in the hiring process, this has been a year where the damage that algorithms can cause has become apparent. But this week, an open letter by Gillian Brockell, who works at The Washington Post, highlighted the traumatic impact algorithmic personalization can have. In it, Brockell detailed how personalized ads accompanied her pregnancy, and speculated how the major platforms that dominate our digital lives. “...I bet Amazon even told you [the tech companies to which the letter is addressed] my due date… when I created an Amazon registry,” she wrote. But she went on to explain how those very algorithms were incapable of processing the tragic death of her unborn baby, blind to the grief that would unfold in the aftermath. “Did you not see the three days silence, uncommon for a high frequency user like me”. https://twitter.com/STFUParents/status/1072759953545416706 But Brockell’s grief was compounded by the way those companies continued to engage with her through automated messaging. She explained that although she clicked the “It’s not relevant to me” option those ads offer users, this only led algorithms to ‘decide’ that she had given birth, offering deals on strollers and nursing bras. As Brockell notes in her letter, stillbirths aren’t as rare as many think, with 26,000 happening in the U.S. alone every year. This fact only serves to emphasise the empathetic blind spots in the way algorithms are developed. “If you’re smart enough to realize that I’m pregnant, that I’ve given birth, then surely you’re smart enough to realize my baby died.” Brockell’s open letter garnered a lot of attention on social media, to such an extent that a number of the companies at which Brockell had directed her letter responded. Speaking to CNBC, a Twitter spokesperson said, “We cannot imagine the pain of those who have experienced this type of loss. We are continuously working on improving our advertising products to ensure they serve appropriate content to the people who use our services.” Meanwhile, a Facebook advertising executive, Rob Goldman responded, “I am so sorry for your loss and your painful experience with our products.” He also explained how these ads could be blocked. “We have a setting available that can block ads about some topics people may find painful — including parenting. It still needs improvement, but please know that we’re working on it & welcome your feedback.” Experian did not respond to requests for comment. However, even after taking Goldman’s advice, Brockell revealed she was then shown adoption adverts: https://twitter.com/gbrockell/status/1072992972701138945 “It crossed the line from marketing into Emotional Stalking,” said one Twitter user. While the political impact of algorithms has led to sustained commentary and criticism in 2018, this story reveals the personal impact algorithms can have. It highlights that as artificial intelligence systems become more and more embedded in everyday life, engineers will need an acute sensitivity and attention to detail to the potential use cases and consequences that certain algorithms may have. You can read Brockell’s post on Twitter. Facebook’s artificial intelligence research team, FAIR, turns five. But what are its biggest accomplishments? FAT Conference 2018 Session 3: Fairness in Computer Vision and NLP FAT Conference 2018 Session 4: Fair Classification
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2408
article-image-australias-accc-publishes-a-preliminary-report-recommending-google-facebook-be-regulated-and-monitored-for-discriminatory-and-anti-competitive-behavior
Sugandha Lahoti
10 Dec 2018
5 min read
Save for later

Australia’s ACCC publishes a preliminary report recommending Google Facebook be regulated and monitored for discriminatory and anti-competitive behavior

Sugandha Lahoti
10 Dec 2018
5 min read
The Australian competition and consumer commission (ACCC) have today published a 378-page preliminary report to make the Australian government and the public aware of the impact of social media and digital platforms on targeted advertising and user data collection. The report also highlights the ACCC's concerns regarding the “market power held by these key platforms, including their impact on Australian businesses and, in particular, on the ability of media businesses to monetize their content.” This report was published following an investigation when ACCC Treasurer Scott Morrison MP had asked the ACCC, late last year, to hold an inquiry into how online search engines, social media, and digital platforms impact media and advertising services markets. The inquiry demanded answers on the range and reliability of news available via Google and Facebook. The ACCC also expressed concerns on the large amount and variety of data which Google and Facebook collect on Australian consumers, which users are not actively willing to provide. Why did ACCC choose Google and Facebook? Google and Facebook are the two largest digital platforms in Australia and are the most visited websites in Australia. Google and Facebook also have similar business models, as they both rely on consumer attention and data to sell advertising opportunities and also have substantial market power. Per the report, each month, approximately 19 million Australians use Google Search, 17 million access Facebook, 17 million watch YouTube (which is owned by Google) and 11 million access Instagram (which is owned by Facebook). This widespread and frequent use of Google and Facebook means that these platforms occupy a key position for businesses looking to reach Australian consumers, including advertisers and news media businesses. Recommendations made by the ACCC The report contains 11 preliminary recommendations to these digital platforms and eight areas for further analysis. Per the report: #1 The ACCC wants to amend the merger law to make it clearer that the following are relevant factors: the likelihood that an acquisition would result in the removal of a potential competitor, and the amount and nature of data which the acquirer would likely have access to as a result of the acquisition. #2 ACCC wants Facebook and Google to provide advance notice of the acquisition of any business with activities in Australia and to provide sufficient time to enable a thorough review of the likely competitive effects of the proposed acquisition. #3 ACCC wants suppliers of operating systems for mobile devices, computers, and tablets to provide consumers with options for internet browsers and search engines (rather than providing a default). #4 The ACCC wants a regulatory authority to monitor, investigate and report on whether digital platforms are engaging in discriminatory conduct by favoring their own business interests above those of advertisers or potentially competing businesses. #5 The regulatory authority should also monitor, investigate and report on the ranking of news and journalistic content by digital platforms and the provision of referral services to news media businesses. #6 The ACCC wants the government to conduct a separate, independent review to design a regulatory framework to regulate the conduct of all news and journalistic content entities in Australia. This framework should focus on underlying principles, the extent of regulation, content rules, and enforcement. #7 Per ACCC, the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) should adopt a mandatory standard regarding take-down procedures for copyright infringing content. #8 ACCC proposes amendments to the Privacy Act. These include: Strengthen notification requirements Introduce an independent third-party certification scheme Strengthen consent requirements Enable the erasure of personal information Increase the penalties for breach of the Privacy Act Introduce direct rights of action for individuals Expand resourcing for the OAIC (Office of the Australian Information Commissioner) to support further enforcement activities #9 The ACCC wants OAIC to develop a code of practice under Part IIIB of the Privacy Act to provide Australians with greater transparency and control over how their personal information is collected, used and disclosed by digital platforms. #10 Per ACCC, the Australian government should adopt the Australian Law Reform Commission’s recommendation to introduce a statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy. #11 Per the ACCC, unfair contract terms should be illegal (not just voidable) under the Australian Consumer Law “The inquiry has also uncovered some concerns that certain digital platforms have breached competition or consumer laws, and the ACCC is currently investigating five such allegations to determine if enforcement action is warranted,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said. The ACCC is also seeking feedback on its preliminary recommendations and the eight proposed areas for further analysis and assessment. Feedback can be shared by email to platforminquiry@accc.gov.au by 15 February 2019. AI Now Institute releases Current State of AI 2018 Report Australia passes a rushed anti-encryption bill “to make Australians safe”; experts find “dangerous loopholes” that compromise online privacy and safety Australia’s Facial recognition and identity system can have “chilling effect on freedoms of political discussion, the right to protest and the right to dissent”: The Guardian report
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2167

article-image-ai-now-institute-releases-current-state-of-ai-2018-report
Natasha Mathur
07 Dec 2018
7 min read
Save for later

AI Now Institute releases Current State of AI 2018 Report

Natasha Mathur
07 Dec 2018
7 min read
The AI Now Institute, New York University, released its third annual report on the current state of AI, yesterday.  2018 AI Now Report focused on themes such as industry AI scandals, and rising inequality. It also assesses the gaps between AI ethics and meaningful accountability, as well as looks at the role of organizing and regulation in AI. Let’s have a look at key recommendations from the AI Now 2018 report. Key Takeaways Need for a sector-specific approach to AI governance and regulation This year’s report reflects on the need for stronger AI regulations by expanding the powers of sector-specific agencies (such as United States Federal Aviation Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to audit and monitor these technologies based on domains. Development of AI systems is rising and there aren’t adequate governance, oversight, or accountability regimes to make sure that these systems abide by the ethics of AI. The report states how general AI standards and certification models can’t meet the expertise requirements for different sectors such as health, education, welfare, etc, which is a key requirement for enhanced regulation. “We need a sector-specific approach that does not prioritize the technology but focuses on its application within a given domain”, reads the report. Need for tighter regulation of Facial recognition AI systems Concerns are growing over facial recognition technology as they’re causing privacy infringement, mass surveillance, racial discrimination, and other issues. As per the report, stringent regulation laws are needed that demands stronger oversight, public transparency, and clear limitations. Moreover, only providing public notice shouldn’t be the only criteria for companies to apply these technologies. There needs to be a “high threshold” for consent, keeping in mind the risks and dangers of mass surveillance technologies. The report highlights how “affect recognition”, a subclass of facial recognition that claims to be capable of detecting personality, inner feelings, mental health, etc, depending on images or video of faces, needs to get special attention, as it is unregulated. It states how these claims do not have sufficient evidence behind them and are being abused in unethical and irresponsible ways.“Linking affect recognition to hiring, access to insurance, education, and policing creates deeply concerning risks, at both an individual and societal level”, reads the report. It seems like progress is being made on this front, as it was just yesterday when Microsoft recommended that tech companies need to publish documents explaining the technology’s capabilities, limitations, and consequences in case their facial recognition systems get used in public. New approaches needed for governance in AI The report points out that internal governance structures at technology companies are not able to implement accountability effectively for AI systems. “Government regulation is an important component, but leading companies in the AI industry also need internal accountability structures that go beyond ethics guidelines”, reads the report.  This includes rank-and-file employee representation on the board of directors, external ethics advisory boards, along with independent monitoring and transparency efforts. Need to waive trade secrecy and other legal claims The report states that Vendors and developers creating AI and automated decision systems for use in government should agree to waive any trade secrecy or other legal claims that would restrict the public from full auditing and understanding of their software. As per the report, Corporate secrecy laws are a barrier as they make it hard to analyze bias, contest decisions, or remedy errors. Companies wanting to use these technologies in the public sector should demand the vendors to waive these claims before coming to an agreement. Companies should protect workers from raising ethical concerns It has become common for employees to organize and resist technology to promote accountability and ethical decision making. It is the responsibility of these tech companies to protect their workers’ ability to organize, whistleblow, and promote ethical choices regarding their projects. “This should include clear policies accommodating and protecting conscientious objectors, ensuring workers the right to know what they are working on, and the ability to abstain from such work without retaliation or retribution”, reads the report. Need for more in truth in advertising of AI products The report highlights that the hype around AI has led to a gap between marketing promises and actual product performance, causing risks to both individuals and commercial customers. As per the report, AI vendors should be held to high standards when it comes to them making promises, especially when there isn’t enough information on the consequences and the scientific evidence behind these promises. Need to address exclusion and discrimination within the workplace The report states that the Technology companies and the AI field focus on the “pipeline model,” that aims to train and hire more employees. However, it is important for tech companies to assess the deeper issues such as harassment on the basis of gender, race, etc, within workplaces. They should also examine the relationship between exclusionary cultures and the products they build, so to build tools that do not perpetuate bias and discrimination. Detailed account of the “full stack supply chain” As per the report, there is a need to better understand the parts of an AI system and the full supply chain on which it relies for better accountability. “This means it is important to account for the origins and use of training data, test data, models, the application program interfaces (APIs), and other components over a product lifecycle”, reads the paper. This process is called accounting for the ‘full stack supply chain’ of AI systems, which is necessary for a more responsible form of auditing. The full stack supply chain takes into consideration the true environmental and labor costs of AI systems. This includes energy use, labor use for content moderation and training data creation, and reliance on workers for maintenance of AI systems. More funding and support for litigation, and labor organizing on AI issues The report states that there is a need for increased support for legal redress and civic participation. This includes offering support to public advocates representing people who have been exempted from social services because of algorithmic decision making, civil society organizations and labor organizers who support the groups facing dangers of job loss and exploitation. Need for University AI programs to expand beyond computer science discipline The report states that there is a need for university programs and syllabus to expand its disciplinary orientation. This means the inclusion of social and humanistic disciplines within the universities AI programs. For AI efforts to truly make social impacts, it is necessary to train the faculty and students within the computer science departments, to research the social world. A lot of people have already started to implement this, for instance, Mitchell Baker, chairwoman, and co-founder of Mozilla talked about the need for the tech industry to expand beyond the technical skills by bringing in humanities. “Expanding the disciplinary orientation of AI research will ensure deeper attention to social contexts, and more focus on potential hazards when these systems are applied to human populations”, reads the paper. For more coverage, check out the official AI Now 2018 report. Unity introduces guiding Principles for ethical AI to promote responsible use of AI Teaching AI ethics – Trick or Treat? Sex robots, artificial intelligence, and ethics: How desire shapes and is shaped by algorithms
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 3352

article-image-google-employees-join-hands-with-amnesty-international-urging-google-to-drop-project-dragonfly
Sugandha Lahoti
28 Nov 2018
3 min read
Save for later

Google employees join hands with Amnesty International urging Google to drop Project Dragonfly

Sugandha Lahoti
28 Nov 2018
3 min read
Yesterday, Google employees have signed a petition protesting Google’s infamous Project Dragonfly. “We are Google employees and we join Amnesty International in calling on Google to cancel project Dragonfly”, they wrote on a post on Medium. This petition also marks the first time over 300 Google employees (at the time of writing this post) have used their actual names in a public document. Project Dragonfly is the secretive search engine that Google is allegedly developing which will comply with the Chinese rules of censorship. It has been on the receiving end of constant backlash from various human rights organizations and investigative reporters, since it was revealed earlier this year. On Monday, it also faced critique from human rights organization Amnesty International. Amnesty launched a petition opposing the project, and coordinated protests outside Google offices around the world including San Francisco, Berlin, Toronto and London. https://twitter.com/amnesty/status/1067488964167327744 Yesterday, Google employees joined Amnesty and wrote an open letter to the firm. “We are protesting against Google’s effort to create a censored search engine for the Chinese market that enables state surveillance. Our opposition to Dragonfly is not about China: we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be. Dragonfly in China would establish a dangerous precedent at a volatile political moment, one that would make it harder for Google to deny other countries similar concessions. Dragonfly would also enable censorship and government-directed disinformation, and destabilize the ground truth on which popular deliberation and dissent rely.” Employees have expressed their disdain over Google’s decision by calling it a money-minting business. They have also highlighted Google’s previous disappointments including Project Maven, Dragonfly, and Google’s support for abusers, and believe that “Google is no longer willing to place its values above its profits. This is why we’re taking a stand.” Google spokesperson has redirected to their previous response on the topic: "We've been investing for many years to help Chinese users, from developing Android, through mobile apps such as Google Translate and Files Go, and our developer tools. But our work on search has been exploratory, and we are not close to launching a search product in China." Twitterati have openly sided with Google employees in this matter. https://twitter.com/Davidramli/status/1067582476262957057 https://twitter.com/shabirgilkar/status/1067642235724972032 https://twitter.com/nrambeck/status/1067517570276868097 https://twitter.com/kuminaidoo/status/1067468708291985408 OK Google, why are you ok with mut(at)ing your ethos for Project DragonFly? Amnesty International takes on Google over Chinese censored search engine, Project Dragonfly. Google’s prototype Chinese search engine ‘Dragonfly’ reportedly links searches to phone numbers
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2775
article-image-facebooks-outgoing-head-of-communications-and-policy-takes-blame-for-hiring-pr-firm-definers-and-reveals-more
Melisha Dsouza
22 Nov 2018
4 min read
Save for later

Facebook's outgoing Head of communications and policy takes blame for hiring PR firm ‘Definers’ and reveals more

Melisha Dsouza
22 Nov 2018
4 min read
On 4th November, the New York Times published a scathing report on Facebook that threw the tech giant under scrutiny for its leadership morales. The report pointed out how Facebook has been following the strategy of 'delaying, denying and deflecting’ the blame for all the controversies surrounding it. One of the recent scandals it was involved in was hiring a PR firm- called Definers- who did opposition research and shared content that criticized Facebook’s rivals Google and Apple, diverting focus from the impact of Russian interference on Facebook. They also pushed the idea that liberal financier George Soros was behind a growing anti-Facebook movement. Now, in a memo sent by Elliot Schrage (Facebook’s outgoing Head of Communications and Policy) to Facebook employees and obtained by TechCrunch, he takes the blame for hiring The Definers. Elliot Schrage, who after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, announced in June that he was leaving, admitted that his team asked Definers to push negative narratives about Facebook's competitors. He also stated that Facebook asked Definers to conduct research on liberal financier George Soros. His argument was that after George Soros attacked Facebook in a speech at Davos, calling them a “menace to society”, they wanted to determine if he had any financial motivation. According to the TechCrunch report, Elliot denied that the company asked the PR firm to distribute or create fake news. "I knew and approved of the decision to hire Definers and similar firms. I should have known of the decision to expand their mandate," Schrage said in the memo. He further stresses on being disappointed that a lot of the company’s internal discussion has become public. According to the memo, “This is a serious threat to our culture and ability to work together in difficult times.” Saving Mark and Sheryl from additional finger pointing, Schrage further added "Over the past decade, I built a management system that relies on the teams to escalate issues if they are uncomfortable about any project, the value it will provide or the risks that it creates. That system failed here and I'm sorry I let you all down. I regret my own failure here." As a follow-up note to the memo, Sheryl Sandberg (COO, Facebook) also shares accountability of hiring Deniers. She says “I want to be clear that I oversee our Comms team and take full responsibility for their work and the PR firms who work with us” Conveniently enough, this memo comes after the announcement that Elliot is stepping down from his post at Facebook. Elliot’s replacement, Facebook’s new head of global policy and former U.K. Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg will now be reviewing its work with all political consultants. The entire scandal has led to harsh criticism from the media circle like Kara Swisher and from academics like Scott Galloway. On an episode of Pivot with Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway,  Kara comments that “Sheryl Sandberg ... really comes off the worst in this story, although I still cannot stand the ability of people to pretend that this is not all Mark Zuckerberg’s responsibility,” She further followed up with a jarring comment stating “He is the CEO. He has 60 percent. He’s an adult, and they’re treating him like this sort of adult boy king who doesn’t know what’s going on. It’s ridiculous. He knows exactly what’s going on.” Galloway added that since Sheryl had “written eloquently on personal loss and the important discussion around gender equality”, these accomplishments gave her “unfair” protection, and that it might also be true that she will be “unfairly punished.” He raises questions on both, Mark and Sheryl’s leadership saying “Can you think of any individuals who have made so much money doing so much damage? I mean, they make tobacco executives look like Mister Rogers.” On 19th November, he tweeted a detailed theory on why Sandberg is yet a part of Facebook; because “The Zuck can't be (fired)” and nobody wants to be the board who "fires the woman". https://twitter.com/profgalloway/status/1064559077819326464 Here’s another recent tweet thread from Scott which is a sarcastic take on what a “Big Tech” company actually is: https://twitter.com/profgalloway/status/1065315074259202048 Head over to CNBC to know more about this news. What is Facebook hiding? New York Times reveals Facebook’s insidious crisis management strategy NYT Facebook exposé fallout: Board defends Zuckerberg and Sandberg; Media call and transparency report Highlights BuzzFeed Report: Google’s sexual misconduct policy “does not apply retroactively to claims already compelled to arbitration”  
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 2477

article-image-opencv-4-0-releases-with-experimental-vulcan-g-api-module-and-qr-code-detector-among-others
Natasha Mathur
21 Nov 2018
2 min read
Save for later

OpenCV 4.0 releases with experimental Vulcan, G-API module and QR-code detector among others

Natasha Mathur
21 Nov 2018
2 min read
Two months after the OpenCV team announced the alpha release of Open CV 4.0, the final version 4.0 of OpenCV is here. OpenCV 4.0 was announced last week and is now available as a c++11 library that requires a c++ 11- compliant compiler. This new release explores features such as a G-API module, QR code detector, performance improvements, and DNN improvements among others. OpenCV is an open source library of programming functions which is mainly aimed at real-time computer vision. OpenCV is cross-platform and free for use under the open-source BSD license. Let’s have a look at what’s new in OpenCV 4.0. New Features G-API: OpenCV 4.0 comes with a completely new module opencv_gapi. G-API is an engine responsible for very efficient image processing, based on the lazy evaluation and on-fly construction of the processing graph. QR code detector and decoder: OpenCV 4.0 comprises QR code detector and decoder that has been added to opencv/objdetect module along with a live sample. The decoder is currently built on top of QUirc library. Kinect Fusion algorithm: A popular Kinect Fusion algorithm has been implemented, optimized for CPU and GPU (OpenCL), and integrated into opencv_contrib/rgbd module.  Kinect 2 support has also been updated in opencv/videoio module to make the live samples work. DNN improvements Support has been added for Mask-RCNN model. A new Integrated ONNX parser has been added. Support added for popular classification networks such as the YOLO object detection network. There’s been an improvement in the performance of the DNN module in OpenCV 4.0 when built with Intel DLDT support by utilizing more layers from DLDT. OpenCV 4.0 comes with experimental Vulkan backend that has been added for the platforms where OpenCL is not available. Performance improvements In OpenCV 4.0, hundreds of basic kernels in OpenCV have been rewritten with the help of "wide universal intrinsics". Wide universal intrinsics map to SSE2, SSE4, AVX2, NEON or VSX intrinsics, depending on the target platform and the compile flags. This leads to better performance, even for the already optimized functions. Support has been added for IPP 2019 using the IPPICV component upgrade. For more information, check out the official release notes. Image filtering techniques in OpenCV 3 ways to deploy a QT and OpenCV application OpenCV and Android: Making Your Apps See
Read more
  • 0
  • 0
  • 4590