On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:56 PM, David Lubkin <lubkin@unreasonable.com> wrote:

...

It turns out that the algorithm families related to deep relationship analysis -- the kind of algorithms you use to invade privacy -- are very much in the former category. They only parallelize well under topological constraints so narrow that even having a giant data center is insufficient; you would need to deploy the data models on the cluster in carefully designed logical topologies in addition to a carefully designed physical topology.

In this case, "winning" is biased toward whoever has both the biggest data centers and the best theoretical computer scientists.

Why do you see this as a sustainable advantage?

That is, won't we reach a point where the capabilities of this NSA center are within the price range of reasonably sized coalitions of private individuals? Yes, by then the government agencies would have even more, but would it make a difference as a practical matter?

(I am not on Exi-Chat so posting here) It matters a great deal. The goal of building these models is deep behavioral modeling and prediction. With sufficiently good models, you can start steering outcomes of human behavior below the level of discernible manipulation on a mass scale. First across the line that feels like wielding that power wins. We are further down this path than most people imagine (though not so far that the specifics are foregone conclusions). It is a mathematics and computer science problem. This is very similar to "first to AI" games and the people that work on it are cognizant of this aspect. If you are far enough ahead, you can effectively manipulate the efforts of people chasing you.

There's only so much useful data about people and their interrelations. It seems to me we move (big and central can analyze in ways others can't) => (big and central can analyze it faster) => (being big and central ceases to have an advantage).

Most people can't imagine how detailed a model of their behavior can be constructed *today* from their data exhaust, nor the quantity of data exhaust currently collected, without even scratching the surface of what is theoretically possible. The best analogy I can think of is compressive sampling/sensing. There is vast amounts of useful data about individual behavior and it is almost unexploited compared to what we know is possible theoretically with the right algorithms and systems. The reason no serious discussion can be had about privacy is that most people do not grok the capabilities of the technology they face. Ironically, it is in many ways more powerful and a lot more invisible than anything Hollywood has portrayed. There is already quite a bit of well-known art around camouflaging this type of manipulation that is already deployed every day -- it is why few people notice. It is a "first across the line" race. The first organization to gain a material advantage and exploit it can only be caught if they allow themselves to be caught. Many organizations are looking for that advantage but the race favors those with very sharp minds and deep pockets. -- J. Andrew Rogers _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt@postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE