Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Search engines have been doing this since the mid 90s and have only improved, to think that any data is obfuscated by its being part of some huge volume of other data is a fallacy at best.


Search engines use our data for completely different purposes.


That doesn’t negate the GPs point. It’s easy to make datasets searchable.


Searchable? You have to know what to search for, and you have to rule out false positives. How do you discern a person roleplaying some secret agent scenario vs. a person actually plotting something? That's not something a search function can distinguish. It requires a human to sift through that data.


> How do you discern a person roleplaying some secret agent scenario vs. a person actually plotting something?

Meta data and investigation.

> That's not something a search function can distinguish.

We know that it can narrow down hugely from the initial volume.

> It requires a human to sift through that data.

Yes, the point of collating, analysing, and searching data is not to make final judgements but to find targets for investigation by the available agents. That's the same reason we all use search engines, to narrow down, they never produce what we intend by intention alone, we still have to read the final results. Magic is still some way off.

You're acting as if we can automate humans out of the loop entirely, which would be a straw man. Is anyone saying we can get rid of the police or security agencies by using AI? Or perhaps AI will become the police, perhaps it will conduct traffic stops using driverless cars and robots? I suppose it could happen, though I'm not sure what the relevance would be here.


The data is obfuscated and the cost to unlock the value of it is often not worth the effort.


And yet billions of dollars (at least) has gone into it. A whole group of people with access to the data and the means to sift it disagree and are willing to put their money behind it, so your bare assertions count for nowt.


Great. What do you think that proves? That doesn't negate my inital argument. The data is largely useless, and often counterproductive. The evidence shows the vast majority of plots are foiled through conventional means, and ruling out false positives is more trouble than it's worth. I cited sources in this thread. Where are your sources?

"Corporations and the US government are spending money on it, so it must be useful." Are you serious? Lmao.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: