What surprised me most about this article is that as far as I'm aware, Russia is so far behind the forefront on machine learning research that hearing Putin speak on this subject is like hearing the president of Portugal say it.
I'd bet a rent check on China having strong AI before Russia any day.
I would bet money that North Korea will not first-strike, and the US military will not fulfill a first-strike if directed.
My premises are that North Korea is a rational actor, and their overwhelming priority is preservation of their regime, and they know without a doubt they can't win a war against South Korea - let alone South Korea and its allies.
You shouldn't. Google is selling your info and your data every second of every day. That's not to say you shouldn't use their services. You just shouldn't trust your personal or private data to them.
This is why i never understood the willingness of people to shove all their data into the cloud, nor will i ever condone the use of or use the "cloud". Stop being lazy. Own your data.
And I do to for now, but the problem is that we don't know who will be running the company 5 or 10 years from now. Or how their privacy standards or security standards may change if the markets change and put pressure on revenues. Or if they just get greedier.
"Operation “Nitro Zeus” illustrates this thinking. As Buchanan explains, in the early stages of the Obama Administration, U.S. hackers went on an expansive hunt for “zero-day” vulnerabilities in Iran’s strategic infrastructures. The raid targeted the Fordo nuclear facility that Washington suspected was purifying uranium to weapons grade. But that was not all. The United States also penetrated Iran’s financial, transportation, and air defense systems. The invaders acted in anticipation of the possible failure of diplomatic efforts to curtail Iranian enrichment activity peacefully. They crafted weapons of war even as they strived to avert it."
I thought the author's idea that it is prohibitively difficult to create exploits in a vacuum, and need to know the specific configuration of your adversary's systems in order to be able to attack or counter-attack was interesting.
If you think it is appropriate for your nation to maintain the ability to respond, then, pragmatically, you support either your nation intruding in other's systems or your nation maintaining a weak deterrent response.
If I had a level 5 autonomous car that was compromised by someone who wanted to kill me, they probably could. Or they could just push me down a flight of stairs.
Ultimately, I am alive because nobody cares enough to murder me.
"Why lock my door, people will open the door if they want to, or break the window."
I don't see what's wrong with having fewer things in your life which can silently kill you.
If you get in a new car, you are now completely at its mercy. There are few or no precautions you can take; you might as well lay on your back, and strap your arms down so your belly stays up.
What you're really doing is making it cheaper and easier to kill, misdirect, or trick you. This means that people who wanted to do these things before, but couldn't afford it, now can.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=...