US entertainment industry to Congress: make it legal for us to deploy rootkits - Suraj-Sun http://boingboing.net/2013/05/26/us-entertainment-industry-to-c.html <comment><USER2> What qualities do people look for when buying movies and music?

1\. The content they want.

2\. Quality (i.e. resolution, bitrate, etc.)

3\. Reliability (it actually plays)

4\. Low annoyance (no ads, warnings, etc.)

5\. Safety (guaranteed freedom from malware, etc.)

The movie and music industries haven't done a perfect job of delivering #1-4. Region coding means the content users want is frequently _only_ available through pirate channels. Lower quality releases (DVD vs Bluray) are also often all that is available in some regions. Bluray is not reliable if users don't keep their hardware/software up to date. Nearly all DVD's and bluray discs on the market are utterly infested with annoying advertisements and warning screens.

#5 was the one thing that legally purchased media had an undeniable edge in over pirated media. If users lose trust in the safety of legally purchased media they will be driven to piracy in unprecedented numbers.

It is tempting to give RIAA and MPAA the rope to hang themselves with, sit back, and laugh. However, let's not forget that every piece of code they write and every root-kit they successfully deploy will soon be taken advantage of by black-hats, quite probably in ways that will cause damage to systems completely unrelated to media playback of any sort. The only way I can see to let the MPAA/RIAA proceed is to require them to post a significant bond (in the billions) to pay for damages their rootkits will cause. Managing how damages are going to be awarded is going to be a legal nightmare though, since this will not affect only U.S. systems and citizens. If the U.S. permits this, I sincerely hope other nations hold the U.S. government responsible for damages, so the U.S. had better make sure Hollywood is ready to foot the bill.

<comment><USER3> You left out one important point:

6\. Convenience.

I believe that the content industry is relying on a sufficient number of people still finding it easier to buy a DVD/Bluray rather than pirate. For technical people, pirating is already sometimes more convenient for reasons that you stated.

There is also a

7\. Ethics

Some people do not find pirating ethical under any circumstances, and will inconvenience themselves to avoid it.

<comment><USER4> Some people also think using animal products isn't ethical and inconvenience themselves to avoid it. But you probably don't want to build a mass market business on that.

For the record, I don't pirate music anymore. Spotify has made pirating too inconvenient.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure the comparison is just. Using animal products isn't illegal.

<comment><USER6> I don't think ethics overlaps much with law.

<comment><USER5> Seriously? Theft, Assault, Civil Liability etc.. I think there's a significant overlap between Ethics and Law. Our systems of laws are based on the work of philosophers studying ethics, of course there's a huge overlap

<comment><USER7> people create laws to enforce ethics, but ethics and laws and law often don't overlap because law gets tinkered with less than ethical people and one man's justice is another man's horror.

<comment><USER5> I agree with you, they definitely don't match exactly. But I was arguing that they overlap: Some parts match, or at leats cover the same ground.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If "they" are both the planters of the rootkit (taking over the computer) and the ones claiming to be wronged, looking for recompense, doesn't this create an unreconcilable conflict of interest as well as a worthless chain of custody for evidence of any wrongdoing? What would stop them from simply taking over computers, planting evidence and profitting (extorting) hugely?

I would think that once my computer spends any length of time not under my direct and exclusive control, I would no longer be solely liable for any actions that may have been taken with it. There would be huge doubt, no?

<comment><USER9> This is an excellent point. "We can only get $X per song in damages? _Plant 100 songs on that computer_."

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is not going to go where they think it will go.

Right now their enemies are just pirates wanting to watch Game Of Thrones for free. A business threat, certainly, but one they're generally handling well.

But start infecting people's computers, and a portion of them are going to fight back. Then the entertainment industry has enemies actively trying to destroy their systems.

A whole different level of conflict, and one which I am certain they are not prepared for.

Never go for an escalation you don't need and will hurt you more than it hurts them.

<comment><USER11> If I ever find a rootkit on my system stemming from a company that thinks they can do stuff like this, and it is legal, it is to a demonstration that the law is not worthy of any respect any more, and that it is time for war. And given the resource discrepancy, the only way of fighting back against companies like this would be to cause vastly disproportionate amounts of damage. I'm sure getting rootkits into _their_ networks wouldn't be all that hard.

<comment><USER12> If I ever find a rootkit on my system, that OS gets binned permanently, no questions asked. I have a zero tolerance policy for who's system my computer is: it's mine. Not the US's, not Law Enforcement's, not the MPAA's, not MS's. If it achieves sentience, fine, it can be it's own; until then, any OS which fails to understand this arrangement (that a secure OS means that only I and system services (Windows Update, various package managers and their delegates) install software...third parties are not allowed), will be binned. If I can't trust my machine to have my singular best interests at heart, I cannot work with it; multiple tethers, trojan rootkits, superseding accounts with permissions higher than my own...these run contrary to my designs, and make it difficult, in the very least, to know when a problem is being caused by them, or by me. Plus I despise being spied on; if I'm going to put on a show, I'm going to get paid for it (no freebies).

I am more and more disturbed with the way OSs are going in general. They are...slowly removing usefulness from themselves, making it hard for admins to work with them, and adding on crap, like Windows Store...which is not needed. It's starting to feel like the computers I work with are...owned by someone else...which means I will start caring for them a lot less. The least of things which currently bothers me are the cross-threading errors which seem to appear in Windows 7...why have these not been fixed?

<comment><USER13> This is a big part of the reason I moved entirely over to Linux and don't even have a token windows box anymore. When I absolutely need to run a windows app (Photoshop, or some MS Office crap that doesn't render properly in LibreOffice) I run (licensed) Windows 7 in a VM, where it is contained and constrained.

All the windows only applications I used to use for fun and hobbies (games, music apps) I've either found Linux replacements for (I basically buy the Humble Bundle whenever it looks good), or I simply do without. I would buy Linux applications for these functions if they were available AND the applications were sane, cross-platform developers sometimes try to treat your Linux box like its an MS box (wanting to put files all over the place etc) which is unacceptable.

We simply cannot trust MS or Apple. At least in the Linux community there is a strong culture of transparency, privacy, security, and freedom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "...there are increasing calls for creating a more permissive environment for active network defense that allows companies not only to stabilize a situation but to take further steps, including actively retrieving stolen information, altering it within the intruder's networks, or even destroying the information within an unauthorized network."

this is actually way worse than the headline indicates. the crazy bastards want the legal authority to actively exploit other peoples computers and "take back" information from it. they want the ability to re-write the world.

it would be pretty frightening that digital media companies were unaware that you couldn't "retrieve stolen information" from computer systems, except no other company seems to know that this is actually impossible so it's just kind of de regueur.

I want to say that this will of course go nowhere because the legislatures support of far weaker measures (like CISPA) is lukewarm, but then again this is the group that brought us the DMCA. it would be especially ironic if the MPAA was more empowered to use computer hacking to protect popular music from theft, than technology and national defense companies trying to protect national defense information and private consumer information.

<comment><USER15> Ha. Black ICE.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusion_Countermeasures_Elect...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusion_Countermeasures_Electronics)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm sick and tired of being in such a lazy-ass, apathetic society that possesses zero regard to freedom.

Stallman may be a nut, but when you think long and hard about what he says, and think about SOPA, PIPA, and this lobby, in horror, your face twists in fear and you watch, helplessly, as your fellow citizens bend over backwards and let the government have their way.

I don't even know what to do anymore. Nobody will lobby _against_ Hollywood; people already gobble up TMZ and are too obsessed with celebrity pseudo- culture and movies and pop music that they won't do it.

We need more activists. And without them, we are fucked.

<comment><USER17> And your answer is _Stallman_?

Yes, he _is_ a nut. In the sense of "no one will ever take him seriously, especially anyone involved in mainstream decision-making, who has ever read anything he has written," which is in this case the most relevant metric. Stallman is never going to be any help here, nor is anyone like him, because any "normal" person -- that is, one that other people won't ignore out of hand -- _will_ ignore _him_ out of hand. This includes politicians, to whom said "normal" people are the all-important majority.

"We need more activists" is bullshit. You think we need more activists? More of those outliers that get lampooned in _every_ media outlet for railing against the status quo? Because that's what activists are to most people: Nuts and/or malcontents.

Of course, my real problem with this statement is exactly the same reason I'm not making it. You think we don't have enough activists? GO BE ONE. If you think they can do any good and you believe that "we are fucked" without them, stop posting on HN, get off your ass, and DO SOMETHING.

Otherwise get back on the bench with the rest of us, because all your whining about mass media and celebrity culture is just that. You can gripe all you want that people aren't doing anything, but as soon as you start telling people what they SHOULD be doing, either you'd better be doing it yourself or you'll have to excuse those of us -- everyone -- who will not take you seriously.

In the event that you actually are interested in backing up your hollow rhetoric: The only way to work this system is from the inside. So start campaigning, or start schmoozing, because while real change is essentially impossible, the only way to mitigate damage is by convincing the relevant politicians that it's in their best interests to do so.

<comment><USER18> Stallman isn't an activist for the end user, he's an activist for the activists.

> Yes, he is a nut.

Eccentric is what he is. Must be fun living in a black and white world.

<comment><USER19> I'm kind of shocked by the extremist label. I don't think Richard Stallman is a nut at all. Eccentric, sure, but only for the unfortunate reality that it is rare for most people to stick with a principle over decades.

EDIT: ok, that foot eating thing is weird.

<comment><USER20> As much as I appreciate Stallman, videos like <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ> show him as eccentric for reasons that go well beyond sticking to principle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I tried to be rational and then I got to the second paragraph of their own brief:

"The second and even more pernicious effect is that illegal theft of intellectual property is undermining both the means and the incentive for entrepreneurs to innovate, which will slow the development of new inventions and industries that can further expand the world economy and continue to raise the prosperity and quality of life for everyone. Unless current trends are reversed, there is a risk of stifling innovation, with adverse consequences for both developed and still developing countries."

Source: [http://ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.p...](http://ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf)

<comment><USER22> > "illegal theft of intellectual property"

Say what?

Such bizarre phrases make me seriously doubt the intelligence and education of the people who wrote this.

<comment><USER23> They are not stupid. This isn't a mistake. It's Dark Arts. They're trying (quite successfully) to attach the word "theft" to copyright infringement, so that people discuss it in terms of moral intuitions about stealing. 'cause if it is called "stealing" then it must be evil, right?

<comment><USER24> And they've been doing so for a long time. "You wouldn't steal a car" etc. were all about equating piracy with stealing from a shop or whatever.

<comment><USER23> Exactly. Funny though, now the obvious answer to "you wouldn't download a car" is "of course I would, just give me a big enough 3D printer!".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Because every country strives to be more like Syria.

"MPAA told Congress that they wanted SOPA and knew it would work because it was the same tactic used by governments in "China, Iran, the UAE, Armenia, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Burma, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam."

<comment><USER26> So what's worse? When it's driven by people thirsty for power, or people thirsty for money?

<comment><USER27> Is there a difference? Isn't money just a means to power?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This has little to do with the entertainment industry. This is dealing with intellectual property such as research and development.

They are trying to protect U.S. companies from having their R&D stolen and used by foreign companies, calling for sanctions via the FTC and by amending the espionage act to go after those who steal trade secrets, for example. The whole paper is on protecting the innovations developed in this country from being copied by foreign entities without repercussions, and when viewed in this light, the proposals are not that crazy.

I recommend reading the paper directly, as the BoingBoing link completely misrepresents it.

[http://ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.p...](http://ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf)

<comment><USER29> The proposals that allow select private companies to deploy destructive software which would land other people in jail very quickly _is_ that crazy. Notion that it is somehow OK to kidnap my property because somebody thinks I owe them some money _is_ that crazy. We have courts and due process for that. We can see how they are abused by copyright trolls (see Prenda Law case, for example, but there are many more). I can't even describe how much more abuse will be invited if cyber-criminal tactics would be made legal for them. It is _that_ crazy and more, and no amount of moral panic about supposed foreign spies who steal all our R&D can justify any of it.

<comment><USER30> Quotes from page 80:

"Informed deliberations over whether corporations and individuals should be legally able to conduct threat-based deterrence operations against network intrusion, without doing undue harm to an attacker or to innocent third parties, ought to be undertaken."

"he Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and law enforcement agencies should have the legal authority to use threat-based deterrence systems that operate at network speed against unauthorized intrusions into national security and critical infrastructure networks."

Apart from the proposal that starts "In the future..." and ends "The Commission is not ready to endorse this recommendation", that's as crazy as it gets.

\</comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-

edit: after reading the boingboing article I see it's about 20 words and two out of context paragraphs.

The first paragraph specifically states that "such measures do not violate existing laws on the use of the Internet." It is simply recommending this as a measure to protect corporate IP, not as something that should be changed.

The second paragraph is immediately followed by noting that such actions are currently illegal, and then recommending deliberation on whether it should be made legal.

<comment><USER29> I'm not a lawyer but I suspect locking somebody's computer up does violate the laws, as it is an unauthorized access to a computer system and a property damage.

>>> that's as crazy as it gets.

Not really. If you read recommendations on page 81, it does not explicitly endorses, but consistently hints at the law as inadequate in areas where it prohibits discussed offensive techniques. See "second" and "finally" parts where it does not explicitly says the mentioned tactics should be allowed but again strongly hints the changes in the law should be made, and implies allowing such methods are those changes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> >> But start infecting people's computers, and a portion of them are going to fight back. <<

I already fought back. I don't watch movies, nor TV. No cable, no Netflix, no movie theaters, no nothing. Fsck 'em.

You want to do the same? Stop watching their lowest common denominator tripe and read a book or make something up for yourself. When they have no money they'll go away. And what will we have lost? Wasted hours sitting in front of their junk.

<comment><USER32> I am much better entertained reading and writing on reddit and here. I don't open TV any more. Rarely go to movies. I probably only watch 5 or 10 Hollywood productions per year any more.

Fuck'em. They don't deserve our attention. I prefer a free culture of exchange to a centralized culture of consumption.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Are they also going to push for laws that mandate that all anti-virus software must ignore their rootkits?

And with secure boot in Windows 8, it will be harder for rootkits to remain undetected by hiding in the boot loader. Will the entertainment industry push for laws that force operating system vendors to provide back-doors for the official malware?

<comment><USER34> Unless Microsoft signs the rootkits purposefully.

<comment><USER35> No way ... MS can buy Hollywood with pocket change. Also the moment they sign something like that - no more business with enterprises and national governments. The integrity of windows and office is imperative for them.

<comment><USER36> Last time I checked MS was still in business.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_BMG_copy_prot...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal&oldid=549679760)

<comment><USER35> This was done without MS active involvement. Microsoft signing a piece of code in wild that can subvert their own secure boot ... is something else entirely.

<comment><USER36> The point is that any company can sign a rootkit (for the price of $99) to run on windows machines with our without SecureBoot. The best MS can do is to revoke certificates of rogue companies but by then the damage could be done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The copyright cartel these days is indistinguishable from the pirates they lobby against. In fact, I think I trust the pirates more lately.

<comment><USER38> I do trust pirates more. I get the media I want in whatever format that I want it. I get it on time, several minutes after it airs. There is no DRM on it so I can use it with my home theater setup without any complications even when my internet goes offline. All I want is a site that lets me pay a reasonable amount of money for a television show or movie and download it in whatever format I want with no DRM. I want to give the creators and the actors money, but I refuse to do it in a way that harms me, or my access to the material I bought for doing so. That is not going to happen anytime soon, so for now I continue to trust the pirates more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Frankly, this might be the sort of kick in the ass people need to start writing more secure software. Who wants their software to be known as the MPAA's attack vector?

On the other hand, I suspect that the MPAA would be in for a world of hurt if they did this. They would not only be dealing with file sharing, but also a coordinated campaign by blackhats to take down their systems, boycotts organized by the EFF and the like, lawsuits from companies whose employees brought rootkit infected machines on the corporate network, etc.

<comment><USER16> Forget black hat; any sane person would organize attacks against the MPAA.

I know Anonymous is one of the prime offenders in this area, but I wouldn't be surprised if many on Reddit organized and attacked the MPAA's systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> From the report:

> there are increasing calls for [...] that allows companies [...] actively > retrieving stolen information

They are still living in the last century, and think that if somebody steals something from them they can take it back. They have yet to grasp what this 'digital media' is.

<comment><USER41> They grasp it alright, but they haven't figured out how to monetize it properly yet, especially compared to their established physical business model, which already has all the infrastructure in place, and they are trying to exploit to the very end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> 1\. Self publish a book 2\. Wreck havoc in world's critical infrastructure while exempt from responsibility because there might be infringement going on. 3\. Enjoy your brave new world.

</comment><comment><USER42> See also: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootki...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal)

<comment><USER43> I boycotted SONY because of this and have been free of their products for 6 years.

Now it seems that more companies want to learn a lesson the hard way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> When I read those excerpts from this report, I assumed it was written by some extremist lobbying group that doesn't have any real power. Then I read this statement from Congressman Mike Rogers (Chair of CHPSCI, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence):

"It is already clear to me that this report is going to make a very important contribution to the discussion about the grave danger that IP theft poses to our economic well-being. In particular, all should carefully read what the report has to say about Chinese economic espionage. I heartily agree that Congress and the Administration need to act quickly to help American companies defend the hard work and innovation that is the life-blood of our economy. That must begin with getting cyber information sharing legislation signed into law."

[https://intelligence.house.gov/press-release/chairman- rogers...](https://intelligence.house.gov/press-release/chairman-rogers- statement-report-commission-theft-american-intellectual-property)

The report and Congressman's statement came out on the same day.

<comment><USER45> The cognitive dissonance involved in playing up the "Chinese economic espionage" threat while simultaneously supporting a move to legally make everyone's computers _less secure_ is astounding.

<comment><USER46> When put in context, this is hardly surprising. His wife was recently the CEO and vice chairman of Aegis, LLC, and is now a high-powered lobbyist for Manatt [1].

Straight from her biography: ... _she focused on_ business development and _new-market-entry_ relationship building for Aegis LLC and the worldwide Aegis Group, drawing on her established global network of relationships _with key stakeholders in U.S. federal civilian, defense and intelligence agencies, foreign governments and leading private sector companies_ to pursue and secure new business opportunities in Latin and South America, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Africa, and to land U.S. defense and intelligence contracts. [Ibid] (emphasis mine).

She presumably still has equity in Aegis Group.

Playing up the Chinese espionage threat plays well with her key stakeholder relationships, and making everyone less secure certainly opens up new market opportunities and brings more visibility to defense services.

Rogers' agenda is just to influence the legislative process to line his own pockets. Business as usual in Washington.

[1]: <http://www.manatt.com/KristiRogers.aspx>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Why should the entertainment industry get special treatment?

Local, state, federal police, IRS should install rootkits to monitor all transactions and activity, turn on audio and video capture from webcams.

Of course it's absurd and would destroy consumer trust of any device connected to the internet.

<comment> daniel-cussen This is why I'm really hesitant about the Internet of Things. Can you imagine if some hacker got ahold of my toaster? He could burn my toast!

<comment><USER47> Or burn down your house for an immature laugh while ruining your life.

<comment><USER38> Ehhh, it would be ok as long as I still got my toast and coffee. I'm really grumpy in the morning without toast and coffee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The movie and music publishing businesses are tiny compared to the telecom industry. It amazes me that they are able to get such proposals taken seriously.

This is beyond wacky in light of serious security threats from both organized crime and foreign governments. The same machines they want to root to check on your music and movies are used for serious work in industry and government.

<comment><USER49> And the general tech industry on top of that. I'm surprised there hasn't been a canada-style tax on media that 'legalizes' such downloading.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> This does not surprise me. I currently am legally entitled to watch several dozen movies, and quite a few TV shows on iTunes, I suppose I've spent about £500 over the years. Here's the problem. I cannot transfer any of these legally purchased movies or TV shows to other platforms, I am held ransom inside a platform-specific eco-system apparently forever. I am a willing customer, I want to reward creators, but in return I am treated like a criminal by the entertainment industry. If there is one thing which is clear it is that the entertainment industry hate their customers.

</comment><comment><USER51> [http://ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.p...](http://ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf)

> The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property > With U.S. > companies suffering losses and American workers losing jobs

Jobs. Translation: this is a PR piece.

> The Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and law > enforcement agencies should have the legal authority to use threat-based > deterrence systems that operate at network speed against unauthorized > intrusions into national security and critical infrastructure networks

Huh? This includes national security now? Are they deliberately blurring the lines between pirating and national security? Why I think so.

> Informed deliberations over whether corporations and individuals should be > legally able to conduct threat-based deterrence operations against network > intrusion, without doing undue harm to an attacker or to innocent third > parties, ought to be undertaken.

They want to legalize Sony's rootkit, but they want to do it right. Rootkits in the wild cannot be tamed, don't even go there.

> if counterattacks against hackers were legal, there are many techniques that > companies could employ that would cause severe damage to the capability of > those conducting IP theft.

You do something that the system thinks is pirating and your computer blows up. What could go wrong.

> ...The Commission is not ready to endorse this recommendation because of the > larger questions of collateral damage caused by computer attacks

Ahh I see, they're reasonable after all! IOW, they want to make their rootkit legalization idea sound sane.

> Recommend to Congress and the administration that U.S. funding to the World > Health Organization (WHO) program budget in whole or in part be withheld

At this point I want to punch someone in the face.

I can't read anymore.

</comment><comment><USER52> At a past address, neighbors would leave a bundle of fresh green coconuts, and a few DVDs to back up, at my front stairs. This worked well; They'd get their DVDs backed up (hey, I didn't ask questions), I'd get my coconut water fix.

At my current address, I have access to my own coconut bundles by the dozen, but I still have to wonder, if this came to pass, imagine how many coconuts would I get for 'unlocking' and recovering the computers they would leave at my door due to MPAA 'stabilizing' their situations!

Put another way, like DVDCSS, this is just another minor annoyance to the technically inclined, and only serves to penalize the less-computer-literate, and enrich the people who do favors for them.

</comment><comment><USER53> DRM lobby must have started smoking some heavy stuff. It's not enough that they insist that breaking DRM is illegal, now they want to make spyware DRM to be legal. True intentions revealed. The next - they must be deploying the Watchbirds.

<comment><USER48> Strong DRM means inherently weak security. DRM in your TPM means the weakest link in your system security is the low bidder on an MPAA RFP.

<comment><USER53> DRM by definition implies weakened security and privacy for the end user. DRM was never about security, it was always about satisfying their bottomless desire for control. DRM already has a history of using rootkits and etc. These lunatics just want to make it legal in order to create another protective legal wall around DRM (with current being DMCA).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I suppose this is about demanding extremes to have lots of room to negotiate in the inevitable following political negotiations. So they can be like - <AUTHOR> didn't request the shoot-pirates-on-sight thing, we even gave up on the idea of rootkits, BUT we have to make stand on <insert real agenda>. Politicians will by their nature try to make compromises. So if you start by demanding what you really want you will lose it.

<comment><USER55> This is why I sometimes defend the people who want to abolish copyright. I don't think it would actually be optimal, but neither would it be a serious catastrophe, and by making the argument and convincing people of the plausibility of it you create a rational baseline from which to contextualize the naked batshit insane power grabs of industry executives.

The trouble with all of this is that it's ruining politics. The way you optimize social utility is for each side to negotiate in good faith and give up the thing which is more valuable to the other side than it is to them. But in a situation where each side has a veto on getting anything done, refusing to compromise is an extremely effective strategy for exactly as long as it takes the other side to mirror it, and then it becomes a high stakes game of chicken where everybody goes over the cliff unless _both_ sides blink. Because a screaming contest is ineffective, but one side utterly and repeatedly capitulating to the other is even worse.

And that's the situation we're in until the extremists at the heads of these companies give up on demanding absolute control over everything.

</comment></comment><comment> hendrik-xdest This sounds like a Hollywood magic trick. Tarantino filmed a gruesome headshot to distract censors to get his desired version of Pulp Fiction into cinemas. This might very well be the same thing.

Before we blow-up this topic we probably should collect all the nasty parts hidden in the document and fight-off all of them at once.

</comment><comment><USER56> And still people buy stuff from RIAA labels and similar organisations. I buy more music than all of my friends but I always check label and parent label affiliations with any of those anti-consumer organisations. But as long as people are usually buying everything without caring, they can do whatever they want.

</comment><comment><USER57> It'll be just like the Kazaa days!

The_Avengers_2_Earths_Mightiest_Heroes.mp4.exe

</comment><comment><USER58> There is no way this will ever pass, this is the most ridiculous sounding proposed legislation I have ever heard. You think SOPA is bad if something like this were to ever be passed theoretically of course, you can bet the world would be a sad, dark place to live in.

There are consequences to this kind of thing and many things to consider. I mean imagine if hackers somehow managed to find a security exploit in the malware the entertainment companies are forcefully installing on peoples computers? Ransomware one minute, botnet the next.

<comment><USER59> _"...you can bet the world would be a sad, dark place to live in."_

I suspect $world = USA here. The chances of anything as daft as this happening in Europe are small. Some European countries already have taxes on blank media/contributions to copyright organisations. Australia and Canada had court action against Sony last time this was tried.

UK politicians do persist in trying to pass legislation allowing monitoring all communications in UK, but we all know how effective that will be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> US people to Congress: make it legal for us to share what we love

</comment><comment><USER61> All this requires money to accomplish. (Lobbying, development, bribes, etc.)

I, for one, have begun to make efforts to -- legally -- contribute as little as possible to the bottom lines of these organizations.

Put it this way: I look at "Hollywood", and I see bunch of prima donnas (admittedly, amidst a sea of workaday "nonames") who want to root my system.

I'm significantly less inclined to purchase their wares, every time I'm reminded of this.

Then I go outside, and discover I've better things to do with my time, anyway.

</comment><comment><USER26> I use only legitimate means to consume entertainment right now, but shit like this really makes me wonder why I should let them use my money to take away my freedoms.

</comment><comment><USER62> So downloading copyrighted content makes you a "hacker" now?

<comment><USER63> That's hardly the point, which is that they can get Congress to bend over backwards for them. Since this piece of legislation is obviously absurd, they'll attempt for something pared down but clearly authoritarian with minimal (non-existent?) oversight.

At this point they're just flexing their muscle to see how much wiggle room they've got. A small part of me wishes votes on legislation were anonymous so our congress-critters would avoid the constraints of having to vote along party lines (and notably their campaign donors' wrath).

<comment><USER24> I can see where you're coming from regarding anonymous voting on legislation, but I'd definitely disagree. It's much more important in my opinion that our representatives are transparent, or else how do we know whether we want them to continue representing us?

It's true that campaign donors have too much influence over the success of legislators, but maintaining a representative democracy is far too important to lose in order to deal with that issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Digit-Al I have heard that in Australia the word "rooting" is used to mean "f%%%%%%". So it seems quite appropriate when Sony say they want to "root" your computer :|

</comment><comment><USER64> I haven't knowingly bought anything from Sony since their last rootkit debacle. I'm sure there's been media from them that I've consumed - but I've definitely avoided hardware purchases from them.

"Most people don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

[http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/110110-sonybmg- rootkit...](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/110110-sonybmg-rootkit- fsecure-drm.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> In other news, convenience store owners want the right to track down people they suspect of vandalizing their bathrooms and _burn their houses down_.

</comment><comment><USER65> It is perfectly legal for the entertainment industry to deploy rootkits.

What you decide to put on your computer is up to you. If someone wants to put something in the software, the agreement is between you and them. So long as they disclose what they are doing, it's not like anyone reads the those agreement contracts on the internet.

A company that deploys rootkits, then survives class actions and angry consumers? Not likely.

<comment><USER66> AFAIK, Sony is still there: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_rootkit>

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> This sort of thing is an externality, like pollution: it compromise rights of persons other than the companies' willing customers.

Suppose I don't have any Hollywood stuff on my PC, am I then immune from the poison-ware? Can you easily recover costs if you are falsely accused? People must remain unaffected unless they are successfully sued or convicted, in a court with proper procedures and evidence.

</comment><comment><USER12> Hey, look, it's time for me to try linux again...

</comment><comment><USER68> Sound like the entertainment industry is suffering from a severe case of walter mitty syndrome cased by to much watching of 24 they will be asking for their investigators for the right to use enhanced interrogation techniques ala Jack Bauer.

They will be dressing up in multicam and running round the woods pretending to be devguru operators with paint guns next.

</comment><comment><USER69> I kind of hope this happens, just to increase the demand for real security. In the short term it would make things worse, but in the long run we'd end up with market pressure to give individuals control over their own resources (both protection from corporate control and from incompetent implementation).

<comment><USER11> Sandbox everything, in effect. I already have a dozen or so different VM's for different types of projects mostly because it's easier to reproduce environments that way, but if there was even a remote chance of something like this, I'd sandbox every untrusted app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> From the paper - "Recommend that Congress and the administration impose a tariff on all Chinese-origin imports, designed to raise 150% of all U.S. losses from Chinese IP theft in the previous year, as estimated by the secretary of commerce."

So... they want their people to pay for the crimes of others?

<comment><USER71> Given some of the rest of the logic behind this whole thing that one did not stand out as particularly idiotic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I know this is not really about games and Im not sure this is actually related, but I'll offer it up in case.

Last night I went looking for info on the game Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon. I ended up on several forums and discovered something I found interesting. Turns out that the official legal version is plagued with various problems. But oddly, it seems that people who downloaded the leaked version are having no reported problems. I had a look at comments on various download sites, and yes there were some problems, but not many and they were normally about getting the cracked version to run, and these problems were quickly solved.

Now, while I accept that there would be an obvious difference between feedback from downloaders and customers, I do wonder if this happens a lot. And if the "pirates" are actually releasing versions of games, that actually work, while the likes of UbiSoft and Steam are angering paying customers with reportedly terrible support and poor product, why would any one in their right mind pay up? On top of that, it would seem that people who used "illegal" copies actually got quicker support that solved the problem from the users on the download site its self. Again, I can see the arguments and flaws there, but on the face of it, its madness.

What completely amazed me was the number of people saying they bought the game, it didn't work, they got no useful support, so they downloaded and played the pirate version.

If paying customers end up having problems, (say the root kit fails to install because for example it doesn't like your NIC, so you cant play the disk,) using other media, TV, Movies, etc, then they too would surely end up having to get their media in other ways. Then, experience would teach them to continue with other sources.

 _If_ this becomes any sort of trend, such businesses don't deserve to survive.

</comment><comment><USER73> Why they just don't offer better service than pirates? If they made it easier to buy than to download torrent, maybe people would actually use it. If I were in their place I would make it payable with bitcoin transaction, which would be as simple as downloading torrent.

</comment><comment><USER74> This is completely off-topic. Where in the entire IP Commission report did they mention anything about the entertainment industry?

[http://ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.p...](http://ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER75> Are there any congressfolk actually buying this specific report?

I could release reports all day long about how incredibly beneficial it is to eat my soufflé, but that doesn't mean congress is going to pass a "t0mcat soufflé protection act of 2013" bill.

</comment><comment><USER76> I think what worries me the most is reading between the lines. As in, "we've already been doing this, it should work, please make it legal." Would be interesting if the bill had retroactive legalese.

Additionally, can consumers claim DMCA violations?

</comment><comment><USER77> The only thing which explains things like this is that, somewhere in the entertainment industry hierarchy, people feel that they are being severely underpaid for their work. Which level do you think it is?

</comment><comment><USER78> They're forgetting that their product is entertainment. It's something I like to use as a diversion from hum-drum daily life, but I don't _require_ it. I can quit any time.

</comment><comment><USER79> Co-Chaired by Jon Hunstman Jr. FTW!

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr>.

</comment><comment><USER80> I'm just worried that this has already happened and they are waiting for it to be legal before they flip the switch.

</comment><comment><USER81> Next up: HTML5/browser-based rootkit?

You never know with W3C these days.

<comment><USER82> This was really unwarranted and unnecessarily provocative.

<comment><USER72> DRM in HTML5 makes the comment not just warranted, but a statement of the obvious. If that is provocative, then I say provoke.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> if the camera catches a naked 8 year old, who will go to prison for taking a pedophile picture that the administrator will see?

</comment><comment><USER84> yeah, like computers are used only to watch movies and listen to music.

</comment><comment><USER85> This is more FUD for the pro-piracy crowd to get their panties in a twist over. The root kit is obviously an unrealistic idea though the network idea is a bit more realistic but I seriously doubt either will go anywhere.

This is our fault though. We have these companies that sell us digital recordings of media we want at a price they've chosen. We found a way to circumvent the buying process and get it free. This is simply not okay. We can debate how fair artists get treated, the price of media, and whether or not distributing copyrighted materials online is technically stealing all day long but in the end any rational person sees this is wrong.

So while we infringe on the copyright holders rights for years any time they try to take steps to curb this behavior (which is on a scale way larger than other types of black markets and impossible to ignore) we act shocked and appalled as if we've dont nothing to instigate it. Each time they fail to curb piracy they come back with an even more deplorable plan to stop it. In the end we're all losing, both the media companies and the consumers.

I still can't understand why anyone would think piracy is okay. I've done it myself but I know its wrong. Using reasons like region availability, pricing, and the usual copyright complaints to justify it dont make sense. They're usually all excuses for the person with "I should be able to get this on my terms because, uhh, freedom" syndrome.

Sometimes the complaints are legitimate but still don't excuse piracy. We've created this problem ourselves and the only way to stop it is to vote with our wallets. Piracy does not count as voting with your wallet. To vote with your wallet you have to be willing to live without the thing you desire or go to a competitor until the seller starts giving the consumer what they want. A black market is not a competitor and it undermines the goal of getting media companies to start making it convenient to buy their product at a reasonable price. Piracy just shows them we want what they've got but don't want to pay. The only way to compete with piracy is to shut it down which is impossible and leads us to crazy proposals like the one discussed here. But lets say HBO and Shotime both aired Game of Thrones. If HBO sucks at distribution and pricing consumers go to Shotime instead. HBO sees this and can't shut down Shotime so the solution is to get better at pleasing consumers.

My point is that you can't compete with a black market and this constant arms race to implement and circumvent anti-piracy measures will lead to a stalemate where we all lose. If we quit both pirating media _and_ buying it, that would start leading to changes in a positive direction (for those of us who aren't just pirating to be cheap at least).

*Side note: unfortunately, getting media online has the potential to become VERY convenient but can never be as convenient as piracy as it'll always require a payment step but is that really so awful?

</comment><comment><USER86> Would it also then become illegal to program software that would defend against such software rooting your machine and erasing things that goes against its views of fairness?

I'd like see them try to root my Gentoo box.

<comment><USER87> Just about every Linux kernel version has had some root privilege escalation bug. So long as they can get some executable software on your system (perhaps not easy!) it's reasonable any such bug could be exploited, and voila, they can install a rootkit!

<comment><USER37> For an industry as fucking inept as the MPAA and the rest of the copyright cartel, I'd be absolutely floored if they managed to break into a Linux machine.

<comment><USER87> They have the money to pay people who can though!

<comment><USER88> But not the competence to identify them</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


S-Expression based markup language - <AUTHOR> http://cairnarvon.rotahall.org/2010/05/25/towards-a-better-bbcode/ <comment><USER2> _Supported tags are b, i, u, s, o, sub, sup, code, spoiler, quote, blockquote, and m._

Let's get some semantic tags in there; I thought we all agreed that the display elements (bold, underline, italics) are out and semantic elements (strong, emphasis) are in.

<comment><USER3> The semantic web somehow took a hit when w3c decided to work on html5 at the expense of xhtml2. By the way, the semantic web is a lie (really, I don't think there's a good way to separate content and presentation, as the presentation is somehow part of the content).

What people on a forum are trying to do, is not to make their text look "strong", whatever that means to the person who made the forum stylesheet, but to make their text bold, whatever that means to them.

<comment><USER4> > What people on a forum are trying to do, is not to make their text look > "strong", whatever that means to the person who made the forum stylesheet, > but to make their text bold, whatever that means to them.

Well, no, not really; that's like saying that I'm trying to create a grilled- cheese sandwich when I go shopping. Unless I am a professional chef (and thus looking to experiment with the form rather than the content), what I really want is the _experience of eating_ a grilled-cheese sandwich: the taste, texture, aroma, visual of grill-marks on bread, etc.

What people on a forum want is the experience of seeing a bolded or italic word: that they mentally emphasize, or add importance to, the term so marked- up. The bolding is just a mechanism by which to achieve that experience, a communication tool similar to speed lines in a comic book. If a particular comic book does something other than speed lines to indicate movement—or if a particular website does something else to indicate emphasis—then that is what will be sought out, as that is the word used in the "vocabulary" of the site's design to describe emphasis.

Strength or emphasis are the real goals; people just aren't used to stating their real goals, rather than "what they're trying to do." (The bane of IRC help channels everywhere.)

<comment><USER3> Bold or italic are two way to emphasize a word. (The destinction between "strong" and "emphasis" seems quite arbitrary to me.) Yet, go around and change the bold words in some person's text by italic words, and he will probably not be happy, yet the emphasis is still there.

Edit : hoho, got the same point as Daniel Newby above whitout even looking. If that's not some kind of proof..

<comment><USER4> However, if you male the strong text red, and the emphasized text green, instead of typographically styling them at all, your audience will begin to understand fairly shortly if your work is text-heavy. In publishing, you _underline_ words in your manuscript that you want to come _out_ emphasized: nowadays, they do it with italics, but before, they did indeed just underline your text in the published copy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Or you can use the real thing:

<http://weitz.de/cl-who/>

</comment><comment> b-man You could also use SXML[1].

[1] <http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/SXML.html>

<comment><USER6> As the author points out, S-expressions using parenthesis as delimiters are probably not appropriate for text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks similar to Latte minus the backslashes. (Which is good; I wrote my old website in Latte minus the backslashes, using a little preprocessor to adjust the syntax.)

<http://www.latte.org/>

Also <http://curl.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> Neat, but how do you insert links with it?

<comment><USER9> {url <http://example.com/> Click here!}

From the manual/spec at:

<http://cairnarvon.rotahall.org/misc/sexpcode.html>

An interesting idea, but I'm not convinced that it has that many advantages.</comment></comment>


Paw – REST Client for Mac OS X - <AUTHOR> https://luckymarmot.com/paw

<comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7716444](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7716444)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm it didn't catch the url, maybe b/c of https, sorry</comment></comment>


SpaceX Says Some Parts Fell Off Rocket But It Didn't Explode - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-on-elon-musk-falcon-9-incident-2013-10

<comment><USER2> When you spend mere xx,xxx.xxx on economy class, you get what you pay for. Sorry guys.

The title could have been worse. I believe I saw 50/50 being thrown around a lot for the chances of this launch succeeding.

Worse yet, the title could be "SpaceX plans to launch its first rocket into low Earth orbit sometime next century" like we are seeing with other commercial space companies ( _cough_ Blue Origin.)</comment>


Enhanced presentation by design - <AUTHOR> http://mailchimp.com/resources/

<comment><AUTHOR> Searching out some information about mail service providers, I found the resource section of mailchimp. This section houses short articles about the use of their system or best practices. What makes it incredibly engaging is the amount of time they spent in designing a dust jacket cover for each article. I think it is worth a mention and goes above and beyond a photo comp. Great job.</comment>


DeepMind's Mustafa Suleyman says general AI is still a long way off - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/05/deepmind-ceo-mustafa-suleyman-says-general-ai-is-still-a-long-way-off/ <comment><USER2> The fascinating thing about his answers is that he says nothing that wasn't already known 25 years ago. 'General AI' is a really vague term and means almost nothing.

It's well known in AI that common sense AI systems are incredibly hard to build and expert AI systems are relatively straight forward to model and build. Given that the most 'common sense' type products we see like Siri and Alexa still appear to be rules based systems (that have been enhanced with historical data no doubt), we all know the world is not suddenly going to become a common sense AI paradise unless a new Marvin Minsky makes some breakthroughs.

I find that the term 'AI' is frequently used when a company has taken an existing problem and enhanced the solution by using machine learning at one or more places. Nothing wrong with that fundamentally, but calling that AI is more of a marketing gimmick than anything else.

Google/Facebook do some of the best machine learning enhanced workflows that delight users. They usually refrain from branding it as AI.

<comment><USER3> Semi-offtopic, but I've always wondered why something like a medical diagnosis AI doesn't exist. The doctor (or operator) would enter all your symptoms and test results, and the software would use statistical data and research results to give you a probability of each disease (e.g. a headache is overwhelmingly probably a flu, but if your test results for X are elevated, the probability for brain cancer increases, etc), as well as a list of tests the doctor could run.

Something like this would be immensely valuable, and would immediately improve healthcare everywhere, since the software could be updated with new or obscure knowledge right away, so you wouldn't have to shop around for doctors until you came across someone who had read of a very rare disease somewhere, the software would already know everything you might have.

Is there something like that out there? It sounds like there must be, but I don't know of any doctors using anything like this.

<comment><USER4> These systems have been worked on since the 90s at least. The latest branding of them is "Decision Support Systems" but there are lots of CAD (Computer Aided Diagnostic, cf Computer Aided Detection). There is a lot of interesting work that falls under the general heading of "Evidence based medicine" that relates to this.

There are a lot of barriers to presenting it as you imagine, though: some liability, some workflow, and some just the deep lack of appropriate datasets. There is also some adoption issues - clinicians are rarely going to be happy with a black box approach but it can be difficult to explain/expose the details of such analysis in a way that clinicians will accept.

A last thought: this is actually very hard to do well and dangerous to make mistakes with - so your rather cavalier claim that there would be immediate and wide spread improvement of health care should be tempered a bit.

<comment><USER2> Your last thought is key. Medical diagnosis demands extremely high precision as well as 'judgement' because one little deviation can be highly correlated with something serious. And there can be several of these deviations in different places. Sometimes a doctor notices something is off while looking at something else. It's not easy to model out all these while keeping up with the changing knowledge in the field and still avoiding false negatives.

<comment><USER4> Agreed - I think the potential value is quite high in unusual root causes. It's going to be very hard to make a system better at diagnosing 'flu' than a trained clinician. However, "flu-like-symptoms" plus a couple of subtle things in the history may point at a relatively obscure syndrome or whatever, which can be very difficult for a clinician to find.

Another thing to consider in any work like this, you really need to thank about what your false positives mean, in a practical sense. If your numbers are big enough (e.g. screening) and your positives result in a procedure (e.g. biopsy), eventually someone is going to die based on a false positive. This may still be the better option, of course, but you really need to demonstrate that, and think about what your sensitivity and specificity tuning needs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anyone who has spend time in AI or ML would know this is true. Currently, AI is very helpful to solve certain types of tasks. The recent advances in Deep Learning etc. is the improvement of AI to solve some of these specific tasks. A lot of people have confused this to assume there would be a master AI system that would solve general tasks. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

<comment> squeaky-clean I have (or avoid) this conversation with family and friends all the time. That because we're hyper-successful/advanced in one area, we can easily just apply that to everywhere else, like some AI budget where we currently have a surplus in Chess/Go/Jeopardy.

"Well, what if they took all the AI power that makes that GO thing beat the best player, and converted it into regular intelligence? It would probably be as smart as the average person!"

Is a real question I've been asked several times by friends. Of course, no one wants to be friends with "that guy" at a party or family dinner, so I usually just say "Yeah, that would be neat" and move on. But I really do like talking having serious conversations speculative AI and geeking out over AI. It's hard though, because most people just want to talk about the kinds of AI they've seen in movies, which are unrealistic compared to what's possible and practical.

<comment><USER6> I've gotten some decent mileage with family and friends by making the distinction between "weak" AI and "strong" AI.

I tell them that any AI that's designed to only solve one type of problem (or a finite set of problems) is "weak." An AI that can figure out how to solve an arbitrary problem is "strong."

I then tell them that we've never been able to create a strong AI, and we've never been able to convert a weak one to a strong one. They ask why not. I tell them that every weak AI, at its core, has a mathematical way to evaluate its outcome. Every time it does something, it does it by assigning some number to the outcome, and it tries to get that "number" as close to the "good" number as possible. All of our advances in weak AI have been in ways to come up with better numbers, or use computers to come up with good numbers to situations that we understand very well but aren't good at attaching numbers to. Finally, I say that with the way we make weak AIs, to make it into a strong AI, we'd have to come up with a way to assign an accurate number to literally every single decision the computer might be asked to make. But there are infinitely possible decisions, so we'd have to come up with infinite ways to come up with a number. To come up with strong AI, we need some "universal" way for the computer to think about the world, but we have no idea what would look like.

This explanation is hardly adequate for a true understanding of AI, but it works pretty well for helping them understand the gist of the problem without using some misleading metaphor that would just give them another bad understanding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is he a CEO though? Wikipedia and other press articles say that Hassabis is the CEO: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepMind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeepMind) and Suleyman is Chief Product Officer, the head of applied AI at DeepMind.

<comment><USER8> [https://deepmind.com/about/](https://deepmind.com/about/)

Hassabis is CEO

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Step 1: State a problem. Any problem which has been articulated is vastly closer to being solved than any problem which has not.

Step 2: Rescue the problem from necessitating general AI by developing an algorithm. Any problem which has been split off from general AI is vastly closer to being solved.

</comment><comment><USER10> I thought Hassabis said he was seriously trying to build grounded AGI based on some type of system with deep learning-ish stuff. I think it will work within around a dozen years or so.

How do they know that they can't take their current deep learning-type techniques or some variation/enhancement of them and apply them to more demanding and general circumstances?

For example, they have the agent that goes around trying to score in a 3d first-person-shooter with the pixels as input. Has it been determined that there isn't a way to gradually train that system to recognize words, phrases, or even sentences that would give it hints about how to score better, maybe by associating words with other (spatial/navigation) parts of the model or more general association between aspects of the learning system in different domains.

To me it seems like some type of deep learning (or maybe a variant using spiking neurons since those can reportedly learn with fewer examples?) when grounded by integrated sensory inputs of different times and incrementally trained, may be able to already exhibit general animal/human-like intelligence, or will be able to with one or two minor 'breakthroughs'.

I'm still going with 2029 (as suggested by Kurzweil I think).

</comment><comment><USER11> DeepMind sounds more and more like IBM Watson by the day. Both created AI engines for games (Jeopardy, Go) and are now focusing on the medical market. The two examples of actual AI applications cited in the article focus on DeepMind's healthcare efforts:

 _The company is working with the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK on a project around the early detection of acute kidney injuries. Critics, however, argue that the collaboration with DeepMind is wider than the company and the NHS previously disclosed. In addition, it's also working with the Moorfields Eye Hospital on looking at how it can use the hospital's eye scans to diagnose eye conditions better and faster. The NHS, however, mostly used its own algorithm in its project, with DeepMind focussing on the front-facing app. Suleyman argued that this is due to the fact that it's still early days for this collaboration, which only started 12 months ago._

So in the health space they're currently doing anomaly detection and building applications for their clients. Sounds very Watson/consulting. Lots of money in healthcare due to the amount of data generated and the complexity of building regulation-compliant.

Judging from their website, they've also built an algorithm for reducing cooling energy usage in Google's data centers.

There are a ton of IoT platforms that are currently competing to connect a bunch of industrial/medical/automotive/aerospace and defense devices and servers, analyze that data with machine learning and statistical techniques, make it easy for users to build their own cloud/edge applications, and eke out every last drop of efficiency they can for their customers.

DeepMind is fortunate to have Google's brand, infrastructure, and reach. I'm just not sure what else separates them from any other "AI" (read machine learning/algorithm-building/efficiency consultancy) out there.

<comment><USER12> AFAIK the health stuff at DeepMind is just one part, the research division is the main bit. Not like IBM Watson consultancy-pretending-to-be-AI-research.

> I'm just not sure what else separates them from any other "AI" (read machine > learning/algorithm-building/efficiency consultancy) out there.

probably the amount of pure research they produce: [https://deepmind.com/research/publications/](https://deepmind.com/research/publications/)

<comment><USER2> Those are 2 very different things as much as we'd like to believe they're one since they're within the same company.

I wouldn't be surprised if google sunsets the company and absorbs the employees in its more profitable products.

<comment><USER13> No way I could see that happening. I mean, they might conceivably decide to fold the group into Google Research rather than keep the DeepMind name, but I doubt they'd do even that due to the name recognition that DeepMind has garnered even among the general public.

The idea that they'd take the people and put them to work making Blogger better or something? Not a chance. AI research is pretty much Google's core function. They'd no more break up that functional area than Apple would take Jonny Ive's team and put them answering support calls.

<comment><USER2> On the contrary, DeepMind is a subsidiary in the new alphabet structure and is looking at a stick wielding CFO with a profitability question on her face.

If they don't figure out compelling products in reasonable time, the researchers will become part of google research (maybe retaining the deepmind name as part of a group within google research) and the engineers will become absorbed or find new jobs. Also, DeepMind is not such a big name outside our little geek community. Try it with someone :)

<comment><USER2> I wasn't implying that DeepMind (or its research team) are going to be dissolved. My point was: _I wouldn 't be surprised_ if that happens if they don't find compelling products to make money off of given Alphabet's revenue focus. Also it can go the consultancy type route it currently seems to be headed for and consultancies can make a lot of money (look at IBM), so they could be a great business. But that might leave the researchers unsatisfied with their impact.

My point was that ideally we like to believe that research supports products, but generally speaking, most of Google research or Microsoft research papers are rarely applicable to their products. And good researchers like being independent (that's how you woo them - with the promise of independence) so you can't usually dictate what they work on.

<comment><USER13> > My point was that ideally we like to believe that research supports > products, but generally speaking, most of Google research or Microsoft > research papers are rarely applicable to their products.

I have no inside information here, but my hunch is that that's overly pessimistic. From the outside, we hear about DeepMind finding cats in YouTube videos or learning to play Atari games or Go, and it's tempting to say, "Google doesn't sell Go programs, so what was the point."

However, Google does do incredibly good image labeling in Google Photos. Their autonomous vehicles might eventually be a profit maker, potentially using deep reinforcement learning methods developed to play Atari games. Certainly, Google Translate and Inbox use ideas developed from their machine learning groups.

You're right that there's often a pressure to make internal research groups more profit-driven and more connected to the revenue stream that runs a company. Microsoft Research saw this happen to some degree 10 or so years ago. But Google's core competitive advantage is their ability to collect and analyze data. Data __is __the revenue stream that runs the company.

Also, I think the "independence" aspect of research is overblown to some extent. Almost no one is truly independent. If nothing else, you're subject to the needs of funding agencies. Typically, researchers just want the ability to work on problems that interest them using ideas they have some control over developing. You can do that inside a company, provided that company is interested in the same types of problems you're interested in. That's been the success of corporate AI/ML labs -- many of the best researchers want to go there because it's a steady stream of interesting work free from the need to do the constant dance for grant money.

<comment><USER2> Lets keep in mind that DeepMind is a subsidiary of Alphabet that has to justify its existence (not tomorrow, but over time) with revenue. Interval research corporation is a good example of a very high profile research entity that couldn't produce revenue and shut down. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_Research_Corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_Research_Corporation)

Retaining researchers who write papers is highly correlated with providing a de facto academic environment for them to work in. Microsoft research has become almost the most interesting place for researchers to go to in the last 10 years because they have developed the place to feel like a university department. Look at their research papers (public). Any overlap with commercial products looks providential more than intentional.

I'm obviously not talking of people like Jeff Dean, whose intent is to build, not publish papers. The big table paper was not the intent - building Big Table was the intent and when they were done, they ended up writing a paper about it.

If Google uses some of the DeepMind research itself, that's really good. DeepMind can make revenue from Google that way (if they have that arrangement). If they can't, it's hard to justify their existence as an independent financial entity - they're better off just being part of Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I like his honesty in saying we are decades away from any general sort of AI.

I remember at AAAI 1982, the conference was handing out bumper stickers saying "AI its for real" that my coworkers and I happily put on our cars. Yeah, a little optimistic:-)

That said, I like the way Deep Mind is run, especially the forays into health science.

</comment><comment><USER15> People with high-profile jobs are severely constrained in what they can say (even though this guy is not the CEO, contrary to what the title claims ATM).

And we already saw that google doesn't want to touch the "uglier" aspects of ML/AI/robotics with a ten-foot-pole (e.g. see how they reacted to Boston Dynamics's humanoid robot video).

So I'm not sure if we should take this seriously. DeepMind technical views are mostly on its papers. Not press statements.

<comment><USER2> Really good point. He might just be following google's PR directives. Also, while their research team is ostensibly doing great work, maybe the product team doesn't have much to show or claim after all. Which CEO/exec wouldn't want to make a tall claim about their product or company while on stage (that they can reasonably back up if questioned)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I personally think that if "general AI" (that is, something akin to human- level or beyond, and possibly sentient) ever happens - it'll happen by accident, and will be an emergent phenomenon that we won't be able to explain.

It will surprise all of us, and will likely be a "earth-shaking", akin to an extra-terrestrial alien contact. Perhaps even more so - because it would be a hard example against the idea of dualism (unless it arises from a quantum computing system - then humans can posit an "out" of course, regardless of whether it is true or not).

All pure speculation, of course. I honestly don't think we'll be able to "design" a general AI - we don't even understand how sentience and consciousness (among other things in the philosophy of mind) even works or exists in human brains. We understand the gears and wheels, but can't describe the factory.

</comment><comment><USER17> I totally agree with the general sentiment of the comments and the article that AGI is a long way off... in the anthropomorphic sense we usually imagine.

That said in many regards, the sum total of the internet, social networks and automated systems that already exist, to me is fast beginning to resemble an emergent AGI / ASI, and furthermore is already out and about busy doing its business.

That it just happens to use networks, humans and machines as cells and DNA seems kind of irrelevant.

Of course this is a silly POV thought experiment, but seriously, if that were the case, would we even notice?

I'm not sure our own cells and DNA know they are part of a larger entity for example.

Okay, enough weird thoughts.. time for bed.

</comment><comment><USER18> FYI, Mustafa Suleyman is not CEO, but rather "Co-Founder & Head of Applied AI," as described in the article. Demis Hassabis is the CEO.

<comment><USER19> Thanks, we've updated the submission title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> >> "We founded the company on the premise that many of our complex social problems are becoming increasingly stuck"

Real AI will not simplify the complexities of social problems — and to believe so shows a complete lack of understanding of those problems and what real AI will become.

<comment><USER21> > _and to believe so shows a complete lack of understanding of those problems > and what real AI will become_

When the CEO of one of the most well-known AI-companies makes a claim you disagree with, you should probably give a better reason for him being wrong than "a complete lack of understanding".

<comment><USER22> Being CEO of an AI company doesn't mean he has a greater understanding of "social problems".

<comment><USER23> "Science talks about very simple things, and asks hard questions about them. As soon as things become too complex, science can't deal with them… But it's a complicated matter: Science studies what's at the edge of understanding, and what's at the edge of understanding is usually fairly simple. And it rarely reaches human affairs. Human affairs are way too complicated." — Noam Chomsky

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Curious to know about his technical expertise, he's listed as an entrepreneur who dropped out of college.

</comment><comment><USER25> That's what he wants you to think!

</comment><comment><USER26> It's quite shocking that even technical people think AI is "a" thing, and will "come" at a certain time.</comment>