Bezos Paper Research Item: Report Has Disappeared
December 6, 2016
I read a weird, sort of out-of-time write up from the “real” journalistic outfit the Washington Post. The story is “Pentagon Buries Evidence of $125 Billion in Bureaucratic Waste.” The days of the fun Golden Fleece Award have passed us by. The Washington Post is apparently trying to revivify an interesting series of announcements about expensive, inefficient US government processes. I know the US government is a paragon of efficiency, so I was curious about the hot news which I read on December 5, 2016. If the url doesn’t work, you may have to pay to view the Bezos paper’s content. Don’t hassle me. Contact the big guy at the digital Wal-Mart.
The “news” in the story is that a 2015 report HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WEB SITE. The capital letters are necessary because the investigative team at the Bezos paper has discovered that a white hot report is no longer findable.
Guidepost for some real journalists. Helpful and apparently accurate.
Okay, that’s just not true.
The report “Transforming DoD’s Core Business Processes for Revolutionary Change” is available. Just click this DTIC link for the short version and this link for the 140+ page version. Dive into the document which was in preparation for more than a year. The reports appeared in January 2015. It took me exactly 20 seconds to navigate to USA.gov, enter the title of the report, and identify the document in the result list. Sure, the USA.gov search relevance thing is not too good, but the document is indeed online from a unit of the Department of Defense. (I wonder if the intrepid Bezos paper researchers have sought ZPIC and RAC contract information on the US government’s fraud related Web sites. There’s a story there.)
This report was assembled in 2014 and made available in 2015. The Bezos paper rolled out the “Pentagon Buries…” write up on December 5, 2016. That’s a bit like reporting that in 2014 Wiz Khalifa’s “We Dem Boyz“ was a reasonably popular rap song. Run the story today and you have a real timely report. That’s “real” journalism.
The DoD fiddles with its Web site frequently. Try and locate details of the 2015 DCGS meeting in Virginia. The information is online, but due to the spiffing up of US government Web sites, content seems to disappear. In some cases like the MIC, RAC, and ZPIC information, a contractor or a clever government Web master moves content from a public folder to a non-public folder. Some bureaucrats are not completely ditzy.
The DoD, however, is another kettle of fish. The agency has to deal with the tanks it does not want yet it continues to receive, the F-35 thing, and the stealth ship which is neither stealthy or ready to take a quick spin to Jeju this afternoon. These expensive projects are difficult to hide. Notice I did not mention my fave US government project, the Distributed Common Ground System available (sort of) in Air Force and Army flavors.
My point is that “investigations” implies something substantive, reasonably new, and not widely known. The “Pentagon Buries…” write up is not new. Its information is widely known even here in rural Kentucky, and I would presume by legions of Beltway Bandits who wonder what the Trumpeteers will do to their highly polished apple carts used to ferry proposals and invoices to the the Department of Defense and assorted sub entities.
In an era during which real journalists at outfits like the Guardian REALIZE THAT FREE WEB SEARCH IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS, I conclude that the “real” journalists prefer old news to tracking down something of substance which is current. Even my comment about MIC, RAC, and ZPIC contracts is old news. I keep the juicy new stuff to myself.
Because I am not a “real” journalist, I sell information because I am a semi retired consultant. Watch for “Dark Web Notebook.” The monograph contains information not previously collected. Some of the information is “actual factual” just like the podcast by three millennials. Perhaps the Bezos paper will buy a copy? I know better than to put the study on Amazon. I watched the horror of the Schubmehl thing, which tried to hawk eight pages of my research for $3,500 on the digital Wal-Mart. What was that “wizard” thinking? Maybe he could work at the Bezos paper? Might be a good fit.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2016
Super Secretive Google DeepMind Open Sources AI Rocket Science
December 6, 2016
Take that IBM. And you Microsoft, I see you and raise you more smart software. The high stakes poker game for the control of the burgeoning market for smart software is getting exciting and expensive. The Google either bursts with confidence, or it fears that outfits like IBM and Microsoft are poised to run the table.
Navigate to the “real” news story “Google DeepMind Makes AI Training Platform Publicly Available.” You will learn that:
DeepMind is putting the entire source code for its training environment — which it previously called Labyrinth and has now renamed as DeepMind Lab — on the open-source depository GitHub, the company said Monday. Anyone will be able to download the code and customize it to help train their own artificial intelligence systems. They will also be able to create new game levels for DeepMind Lab and upload these to GitHub.
Is the move a response to auto maker, dreamer, and launcher of expensive fireworks Elon Musk’s puttering in smart software? The “real” news story said:
OpenAI, a rival research shop set up by billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Sam Altman, a founder of Silicon Valley startup accelerator Y Combinator, made its own AI training platform, called OpenAI Gym, available to the public in April [2016]. On Monday it also announced that it was making public an interface called Universe that lets an AI agent “use a computer like a human does: by looking at screen pixels and operating a virtual keyboard and mouse,” the company said in a statement. In short, it’s a go-between that lets an AI system learn the skills needed to play games or operate other applications. Researchers can use tools in OpenAI’s Gym to measure how these agents perform.
Why pay for artificial intelligence to perform the handful of tasks that the Harvard Business Review documented in the helpful write up “What Artificial Intelligence Can and Can’t Do Right Now.”
Perhaps free software will allow the capabilities of smart software to achieve the heights of wonder the marketers envision? How does one spell lock in?
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2016
Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube: A Spirit of Cooperation
December 6, 2016
I found this write up interesting. No philosophy or subjective comment required. The title of the write up is “Partnering to Help Curb Spread of Online Terrorist Content.” This is what is called “real” news, but that depends upon one’s point of view.
I highlighted this passage:
Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube are coming together to help curb the spread of terrorist content online. There is no place for content that promotes terrorism on our hosted consumer services. When alerted, we take swift action against this kind of content in accordance with our respective policies.
The idea is to use “digital fingerprints” in the manner of Terbium Labs and other companies to allow software to match prints and presumably take action in an automated, semi automated, or manual fashion. The idea is to make it difficult for certain content to be “found” online via these services.
The write up adds:
As we continue to collaborate and share best practices, each company will independently determine what image and video hashes to contribute to the shared database. No personally identifiable information will be shared, and matching content will not be automatically removed. Each company will continue to apply its own policies and definitions of terrorist content when deciding whether to remove content when a match to a shared hash is found. And each company will continue to apply its practice of transparency and review for any government requests, as well as retain its own appeal process for removal decisions and grievances. As part of this collaboration, we will all focus on how to involve additional companies in the future.
I noted the word “collaborate” and its variants.
The filtering addresses privacy in this way:
Throughout this collaboration, we are committed to protecting our users’ privacy and their ability to express themselves freely and safely on our platforms. We also seek to engage with the wider community of interested stakeholders in a transparent, thoughtful and responsible way as we further our shared objective to prevent the spread of terrorist content online while respecting human rights.
Fingerprints in the world of law enforcement are tied to an individual or, in the case of Terbium, to an entity. Walking back from a fingerprint to an entity is a common practice. The business strategy is to filter content that does not match the policies of certain organizations.
Stephen E Arnold, December 6, 2016
HonkinNews for December 6, 2016 Now Available
December 6, 2016
This week’s HonkinNews takes a look at Paltnetir’s appetite for money. We talk about an easy way to search a competitor’s marketing collateral. Yandex heads to Iran with VK.com likely to follow. Microsoft embraces quantum computing but we caution Microsoft not to confuse a qubit with the video game. There’s more too. We reveal the Web search market share of Excite.com. Exciting. Here’s the link.
Kenny Toth, December 6, 2016
Shade Created by Mountainous Stacks of Cash Passing from Google to Washington
December 6, 2016
The article titled Google’s Murky Washington Lobbying Is Making Apple Look Good on Observer points out yet another area of shady activity by Google. In the last five to ten years, Google has led the charge of tech firms into Washington, D.C. Google employees include multiple ex-White House staffers, and vice versa, Google spends tens of millions on lobbying per year (compared to Apple’s measly $5M) and Google donated over a million dollars to various political candidates in 2014 through its PAC. The article presents why this is not ideal:
Google has built significant relationships with the US government – directly through the revolving door of personnel, traditional lobbying, political contributions; and indirectly through trade associations and other advocacy groups. The lack of transparency, especially for a company that specializes in information, is problematic. Google’s very calculated strategy has bought out new critics, including some shareholders. Given the climate Google operates in most people would expect transparency, and instead Google has chosen opacity, which is troubling.
As we know, the American people get very antsy when it comes to the state of our oligarchy. We are keenly aware of the huge amounts of money being passed around, especially when it comes to lobbying. At this point, the only company spending more on lobbying than Google is GE. But what exactly this money buys for Google remains murky, and that should make us all extremely uncomfortable.
Chelsea Kerwin, December 6, 2016
Associative Semantic Search Is a New Technology, Not a Mental Diagnosis
December 6, 2016
“Associative semantic” sounds like a new mental diagnosis for the DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders), but it actually is the name of a search technology that sounds like it amplifies the basic semantic search. Aistemos has the run down on the new search technology in the article, “Associative Semantic Search Technology: Omnity And IP.” Omnity is the purveyor of the “associative semantic search” and it makes the standard big data promise:
…the discovery of otherwise hidden, high-value patterns of interconnection within and between fields of knowledge as diverse as science, medicine, engineering, law and finance.
All of the companies centered on big data have this same focus or something similar, so what does Omnity offer that makes it stand out? It proposes to find connections between documents that do not directly correlate or cite one another. Omnity uses the word “accelerate” to explain how it will discover hidden patterns and expand knowledge. The implications mean semantic search would once again be augmented and more accurate.
Any industry that relies on detailed documents would benefit:
Such a facility would presumably enable someone to find references to relevant patents, technologies and prior art on a far wider scale than has hitherto been the case. The legal, strategic and commercial implications of being able to do this, for litigation, negotiation, due diligence, investment and forward planning are sufficiently obvious for us not to need to list them here.
The article suggests those who would most be interested in Omnity are intellectual property businesses. I can imagine academics would not mind getting their hands on the associative semantic search to power their research or law enforcement could use it to fight crime.
Whitney Grace, December 6, 2016
Physiognomy for the Modern Age
December 6, 2016
Years ago, when I first learned about the Victorian-age pseudosciences of physiognomy and phrenology, I remember thinking how glad I was that society had evolved past such nonsense. It appears I was mistaken; the basic concept was just waiting for technology to evolve before popping back up, we learn from NakedSecurity’s article, “’Faception’ Software Claims It Can Spot Terrorists, Pedophiles, Great Poker Players.” Based in Isreal, Faception calls its technique “facial personality profiling.” Writer Lisa Vaas reports:
The Israeli startup says it can take one look at you and recognize facial traits undetectable to the human eye: traits that help to identify whether you’ve got the face of an expert poker player, a genius, an academic, a pedophile or a terrorist. The startup sees great potential in machine learning to detect the bad guys, claiming that it’s built 15 classifiers to evaluate certain traits with 80% accuracy. … Faception has reportedly signed a contract with a homeland security agency in the US to help identify terrorists.
The article emphasizes how problematic it can be to rely on AI systems to draw conclusions, citing University of Washington professor and “Master Algorithm” author Pedro Domingos:
As he told The Washington Post, a colleague of his had trained a computer system to tell the difference between dogs and wolves. It did great. It achieved nearly 100% accuracy. But as it turned out, the computer wasn’t sussing out barely perceptible canine distinctions. It was just looking for snow. All of the wolf photos featured snow in the background, whereas none of the dog pictures did. A system, in other words, might come to the right conclusions, for all the wrong reasons.
Indeed. Faception suggests that, for this reason, their software would be but one factor among many in any collection of evidence. And, perhaps it would—for most cases, most of the time. We join Vaas in her hope that government agencies will ultimately refuse to buy into this modern twist on Victorian-age pseudoscience.
Cynthia Murrell, December 6, 2016
On Accountability for Search Engine Content
December 6, 2016
For better or worse, Google and, to a lesser extent other Internet search engines, shape the way many people view the world. That is a lot of power, and some folks are uneasy about allowing those companies to wield it without some sort of oversight. For example, MIT Technology Review asks, “What’s Behind Google’s Secretive Ad-Blocking Policy?” At the heart of the issue is Google’s recent decision to ban ads for payday loans, a product widely considered to be predatory and currently under investigation by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Reporter Elizabeth Woyke observes that such concerns about gate-keeping apply to other major online companies, like Microsoft, Yahoo, and Baidu. She writes:
Consumers might not realize it, but Google—and other ad-supported search engines—have been making editorial decisions about the types of ads they will carry for years. These companies won the right to reject ads they consider objectionable in 2007, when a Delaware district court ruled that constitutional free-speech guarantees don’t apply to search engines since they are for-profit companies and not ‘state actors.’ The decision cited earlier cases that upheld newspapers’ rights to decide which ads to run.
Google currently prohibits ads for ‘dangerous,’ ‘dishonest,’ and ‘offensive’ content, such as recreational drugs, weapons, and tobacco products; fake documents and academic cheating services; and hate-group paraphernalia. Google also restricts ads for content it deems legally or culturally sensitive, such as adult-oriented, gambling-related, and political content; alcoholic beverages; and health care and medicine. It may require additional information from these advertisers and limit placement to certain geographical locations.”
Legal experts, understandably, tend to be skittish about ceding this role to corporations. How far, and in which directions, will they be allowed to restrict content? Will they ever be required to restrict certain content that could cause harm? And, where do we as a society draw those lines? One suggestion that seems to make sense is a call for transparency. That way, at least, users could tap into the power of PR to hold companies accountable. See the write-up for more thoughts on the subject from legal minds.
Cynthia Murrell, December 6, 2016
Is Sketch Search the Next Big Thing?
December 5, 2016
There’s text search and image search, but soon, searching may be done via hand-drawn sketching. Digital Trends released a story, Forget keywords — this new system lets you search with rudimentary sketches, which covers an emerging technology. Two researchers at Queen Mary University of London’s (QMUL) School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science taught a deep learning neural network to recognize queries in the form of sketches and then return matches in the form of products. Sketch may have an advantage surpassing image search,
Both of those search modalities have problems,” he says. “Text-based search means that you have to try and describe the item you are looking for. This is especially difficult when you want to describe something at length, because retrieval becomes less accurate the more text you type. Photo-based search, on the other hand, lets you take a picture of an item and then find that particular product. It’s very direct, but it is also overly constrained, allowing you to find just one specific product instead of offering other similar items you may also be interested in.
This search technology is positioning itself to online retail commerce — and perhaps also only users with the ability to sketch? Yes, why read? Drawing pictures works really well for everyone. We think this might present monetization opportunities for Pinterest.
Megan Feil, December 5, 2016
Search Competition Is Fiercer Than You Expect
December 5, 2016
In the United States, Google dominates the Internet search market. Bing has gained some traction, but the results are still muddy. In Russia, Yandex chases Google around in circles, but what about the enterprise search market? The enterprise search market has more competition than one would think. We recently received an email from Searchblox, a cognitive platform that developed to help organizations embed information in applications using artificial intelligence and deep learning models. SearchBlox is also a player in the enterprise software market as well as text analytics and sentiment analysis tool.
Their email explained, “3 Reasons To Choose SearchBlox Cognitive Platform” and here they are:
1. EPISTEMOLOGY-BASED. Go beyond just question and answers. SearchBlox uses artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning models to learn and distill knowledge that is unique to your data. These models encapsulate knowledge far more accurately than any rules based model can create.
2. SMART OPERATION Building a model is half the challenge. Deploying a model to process big data can be even for challenging. SearchBlox is built on open source technologies like Elasticsearch and Apache Storm and is designed to use its custom models for processing high volumes of data.
3. SIMPLIFIED INTEGRATION SearchBlox is bundled with over 75 data connectors supporting over 40 file formats. This dramatically reduces the time required to get your data into SearchBlox. The REST API and the security capabilities allow external applications to easily embed the cognitive processing.
To us, this sounds like what enterprise search has been offering even before big data and artificial intelligence became buzzwords. Not to mention, SearchBlox’s competitors have said the same thing. What makes Searchblox different? The company claims to be more inexpensive and they have won several accolades. SearchBlox is made on open source technology, which allows it to lower the price. Elasticsearch is the most popular open source search software, but what is funny is that Searchblox is like a repackaged version of said Elasticsearch. Mind you are paying for a program that is already developed, but Searchblox is trying to compete with other outfits like Yippy.
Whitney Grace, December 5, 2016
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
