"When we need medical care, we expect decisions about our treatment to be made by our doctors, not a tech company's algorithm,"
Yeah, that's the expectation of people who are new. They haven't seen an insurance company or Medicaid (or Medicare) deny treatment, or seen an employee at the SSA with no medical training deny an application for disability.
I think the denizens of Silicon Valley very much care. They see this scandal as threatening to take away their cookie jar.
Sure, but they're probably not "everyday people" like those mentioned in the sock puppet campaign - a chef, a stock trader, a Hebrew teacher and several environmental activists.
On Saturday morning at their press conference (11am EST ish) the Transportation Secretary and FAA Administrators were blaming a routine remote site network upgrade (from copper to fiber) for the system instability.
I posted this elsewhere, but it's worth noting again.
Who does an IT infrastructure update/upgrade in the middle of a weekday, especially on an apparently critical piece?
L3Harris has a long history of various contracting and implementation anomalies. As a large government contractor, with lots of moving parts and lots of contracts, that is not, itself, too surprising. However Duffy seems to be throwing them under the bus before the full facts in this case are known. That always raises an eyebrow or two.
Also, who does an IT infrastructure update/upgrade in the middle of a weekday, especially on an apparently critical piece?
If the system is designed so that a couple of routers in one spot can make it necessary to ground everything, the design is bad. Saying they need $50B stat is wild when it clearly wasn't done right the first time with however much was spent so far.
Networks are designed to route around damage but can't route around this Administration.
I've actually been peripherally involved in something like this, I think it was September 2000, maybe a few months later.
An ATC system where they had two networks, the "office" network and the "core business of actually directing flights" network. The offices were around 10 miles away from the airport, which is where the ATC mainframe and - obviously- the ATC tower were. There was a bridge between the networks.
There were building works going on in the city, and they cut the cables while excavating. The agreement with the provider was that there would be two high speed lines and that they would not be in the same bundles of cables (or maybe glass fibre, if that was a "thing" back then). Unfortunately they had not insisted in the cables being in the separate ditches. The excavator cut both connections.
This should not have been a problem, two separate networks right? The critical one was at the airport and the whole point of that setup was so things would carry on if the offices were cut off. Most of the network group worked in the offices rather than at the airport. Some component was in the offices, the router at the airport was set up so that the control traffic to that component had the highest priority.
Bottom line, the core network was nominally unaffected, but a router there was trying to reach the office network and it was using all of its processor power for that. The core network pretty much came to a standstill. I can't remember how long that outage lasted but it was several hours.
Lessons were learned and all that.
The offices moved to a new location a year or so later, something which had been in preparation for a few years by then. New offices, new cables, whatever.
In 2003 (or maybe early 2004) something similar happened, an excavator chopped the connection. I was working on the mainframes at the airport from the offices so obviously I was affected, I just drove to the airport and carried on from there, everything worked exactly as it was supposed to - the offices could communicate with each other and the ATC Tower had full access to the ATC mainframes. It took a few hours before the two networks were linked to each other again but nobody outside noticed anything.
Yes. The problem is that they called it AI, while it should have been called SI.
You joke, but in a press brief about the ground stop, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin corrected a reporter who asked about AI:
Markwayne Mullin Chides Reporter Amid FAA Ground Stoppage Chaos: ‘We Call it SI’
“There are thoughts that, you know, this could be an AI related error or issue,” the reporter asked Mullin.
“We call it SI around here remember. SI,” he said, before adding, “You just can’t rule out anything at this point. We’re going through that process and we’re going to find out what happened.”
These renaming things are so pointless/stupid.
Let's hope rhey know where the Hams are who have all kinds of thin wire hung up in their trees.
And they stay out of their private airspace.
Joining the chorus online were voices of seemingly everyday people: a chef, a stock trader, a Hebrew teacher and several environmental activists. But at least 400 of them were fake,
Yup, 'cause scores of "everyday people" care about Nvidia or, more specifically, billionaire CEO Jensen Huang, (or, more generally, billionaires) so let's try to fake that. So stupid.
Like other documented influence campaigns, the posts appeared to have limited reach; the most-viewed tweet garnered about 8,000 views and 32 likes.
Whew, good. Guess people aren't that gullible.
Still, some of the posts targeted lawmakers,
Uh oh.
Click farming.
The news outlets are looking for more engagement, and we are giving it to them.
how about this contest: Use AI & robots to grow a food with absolutely no human intervention
Short term, might be possible.
Medium term, not possible yet because the machines will break down and they aren't designed to be maintained by other machines.
Long term, possible but complex without at least having humans do inspections.
He has been working with Microsoft. There is a history of poor communication, lackluster responses, and a decision not to pay out a bug bounty.
Microsoft stopped responding to him privately, so he forced their hand publicly.
Sometimes community members can be
"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some businesses you just can't reach. So you get what we had here this week, which is the way they wants it... well, they gets it. I don't like it any more than you do."
When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.
