Abundance of information = improved intelligence?

[Chik]

I came across this quote quite by accident today:

"This is not an information age. It's an age of networked intelligence."

Don Tapscott, a blockchain evangelist, said it.

What do you reckon he means by networked intelligence?

Thanks to the Internet, there has certainly been a surge of easily available information which aids in improving one's knowledge. There has also been a surge in the exposure to unfounded, incoherent opinions. Neither knowledge nor incoherent opinions lead to intelligence every time, networked or otherwise, albeit I still haven't a clue what is meant by networked.

Blockchain is a funny thing. There have been many attempts by various blockchain vendors to sell the idea to those in my supply chain in order to, amongst other things, aid in establishing a robust and transparent chain of custody, which has been extremely difficult to do on a large scale for a variety of structural and operational reasons.

Blockchain is invariably presented as some kind of a magical wand to cure all the problems including the prospect of people mucking about with the data along the way. It all sounds good, but as with most things that sound too good, it begs a few basic questions that turn out to be difficult to answer.

The whole construct relies on the premise that the data first introduced to the blockchain has integrity. Therefore, it needs to rely on an external system / process to ensure the integrity of the original set of data. What doesn't seem to be recognised is that that's where the biggest challenge lies IRL and that record keeping is just a secondary challenge which can be overcome without blockchain as a matter of will and additional man-hours, not means.

All blockchain does is to hold and pass on the data. It's just data. In our case, that data is about a physical product, which is not inseparable from the data. It's easy enough to make a switch. Now an inferior product is associated with the existing data. Kid's play. The data itself is worthless. It's the product that has any value (in our realm).

That data is supposedly incorruptible, free from interference from unauthorised parties. In one word, secure, they all say. Yet, we see crypto exchanges being raided, and the design of these decentralised chains make it extremely difficult to trace where the stolen data flows, but centralised chains are subject to manipulation by controlling parties.

A fancy database is not the networked solution they say it is. It's not intelligent, completely reliant on human beings to uphold the integrity and security of the data. Just a tool that might get you to a solution, provided all the other variables are sorted.

And just because you have access to lots more information, both valid and invalid, doesn't mean you're more intelligent. I thought intelligence is what you do with information, not just accessing it.

Thoughts?

[e-RICHIE]

And just because you have access to lots more information, both valid and invalid, doesn't mean you're more intelligent. I thought intelligence is what you do with information, not just accessing it.

Thoughts?

agree.

wisdom > knowledge (you can quote me.)

[bigbill]

An abundance of information is what fascinates me about history. I now look at historical accounts critically because so many can be discounted with available databases that have increased in size. My master's thesis was about the proliferation of a false narrative and how it permeated our society. Sometimes it comes down to how far a person is willing to go to question their beliefs. The lazy approach is to latch on to ideas or opinions that closely align with preconceived notions, even though resources are available that challenge those opinions.

[fastupslowdown]

information is not data!

And having more data at your disposal doesn't make for better decision making. It's analyzing that data and putting it into context where the hard work comes in.

[vertical_doug]

Data on the blockchain may be knowledge.

Intelligence is knowing how to use it and infer things

[fastupslowdown]

I never bought into bitcoin but i do think block chain technology offers some interesting way of keeping track of things. It might be useful in keeping track of titles and mortgage deeds.

[Chik]

I get the feeling that Tapscott feels rather intelligent after proffering that statement, and the person that quoted him was impressed enough to quote him at the top of a web page.

And, fastupslowdown, I do think blockchain has a place, just not everywhere.

[Bob Ross]

My master's thesis was about the proliferation of a false narrative and how it permeated our society.

That sounds fascinating. I presume you explored a particular instance of this proliferation/permeation, rather than society's tendency to allow it to occur again and again?

[bigbill]

That sounds fascinating. I presume you explored a particular instance of this proliferation/permeation, rather than society's tendency to allow it to occur again and again?

Yes, I discussed the proliferation of the Confederate Lost Cause myth as a religion. The Confederate version of events, which was untrue, was the first to be published, and the first liar won.

[NYCfixie]

I recently completed a Masters in Information Management (from one of the top programs in the USA) so while far from an authority, I believe I have a better understanding and more "knowledge" than most on the subject. Definitions are important because many of the terms are used interchangeably which is incorrect.

Data: an unstructured collection of facts, statistics, etc.
Information: Data that has been structured to give it context and meaning
Knowledge: The acquisition of information through experience and/or learning


A few definitions from:
Defining Information Policy: Relating Issues to the Information Cycle
Judith E. Pasek

"...data becomes information when it acquires context and meaning."
"Information has been characterized as generally falling in between data and knowledge on a continuum of understanding."
"A common dichotomy is to characterize information as a product or commodity as opposed to the creative content within a product, container, or medium (Browne, 265–66)."


In my two years of study we never once defined the word intelligence because it really had no basis in our studies. In my own definition, intelligence is a person's ability to understand and use information and data but it has no affect on the underlying information or data. An example is a person who could have the ability to gain knowledge but not the intelligence to use it.


A blockchain is simply a secure way to manage ownership of something. And please do not blame the decline/demise of crypto currencies on the underlying blockchain technology. As an example, FTX was about theft and fraud and not the underlying technology. If money is taken out of people's accounts due to fraud and then used to make bad investments, that is theft and fraud but not a failure of the technology. When a person uses a crypto exchange they are handing over their "personal keys to the kingdom" to the exchange so the exchange can trade on their behalf. So, if the exchange owner then uses those keys to steal your money, the underlying blockchain will still show the withdrawal transaction even though your money is now gone.

An interesting documentary on Netflix about theft in the crypto world:
Trust No One: The Hunt for the Crypto King
https://www.netflix.com/title/81349029


Networked Intelligence is a whole other can of worms that requires standardized and agreed upon definitions. My own not so perfect definitions are:
- Networked intelligence is Artificial Intelligence using knowledge (as defined above) to make informed decisions (but AI is far from being truly useful at present)
- Networked intelligence can be "group think" or the reaching of a conclusion based on shared knowledge and individual intelligence (aka the wisdom of crowds)

*** In ether case it may lead to a decision but not a good or correct decision if the underlying data and information is crap or if the intelligence is not good. An AI that was not trained (or did not learn) correctly may have poor intelligence. A group of stupid people may get to the a decision/conclusion but that outcome might still be wrong.***

I came across this quote quite by accident today:


And just because you have access to lots more information, both valid and invalid, doesn't mean you're more intelligent. I thought intelligence is what you do with information, not just accessing it.

Thoughts?

[Chik]

I recently completed a Masters in Information Management (from one of the top programs in the USA) so while far from an authority, I believe I have a better understanding and more "knowledge" than most on the subject. Definitions are important because many of the terms are used interchangeably which is incorrect.

Data: an unstructured collection of facts, statistics, etc.
Information: Data that has been structured to give it context and meaning
Knowledge: The acquisition of information through experience and/or learning


A few definitions from:
Defining Information Policy: Relating Issues to the Information Cycle
Judith E. Pasek

"...data becomes information when it acquires context and meaning."
"Information has been characterized as generally falling in between data and knowledge on a continuum of understanding."
"A common dichotomy is to characterize information as a product or commodity as opposed to the creative content within a product, container, or medium (Browne, 265–66)."


In my two years of study we never once defined the word intelligence because it really had no basis in our studies. In my own definition, intelligence is a person's ability to understand and use information and data but it has no affect on the underlying information or data. An example is a person who could have the ability to gain knowledge but not the intelligence to use it.


A blockchain is simply a secure way to manage ownership of something. And please do not blame the decline/demise of crypto currencies on the underlying blockchain technology. As an example, FTX was about theft and fraud and not the underlying technology. If money is taken out of people's accounts due to fraud and then used to make bad investments, that is theft and fraud but not a failure of the technology. When a person uses a crypto exchange they are handing over their "personal keys to the kingdom" to the exchange so the exchange can trade on their behalf. So, if the exchange owner then uses those keys to steal your money, the underlying blockchain will still show the withdrawal transaction even though your money is now gone.

An interesting documentary on Netflix about theft in the crypto world:
Trust No One: The Hunt for the Crypto King
https://www.netflix.com/title/81349029


Networked Intelligence is a whole other can of worms that requires standardized and agreed upon definitions. My own not so perfect definitions are:
- Networked intelligence is Artificial Intelligence using knowledge (as defined above) to make informed decisions (but AI is far from being truly useful at present)
- Networked intelligence can be "group think" or the reaching of a conclusion based on shared knowledge and individual intelligence (aka the wisdom of crowds)

*** In ether case it may lead to a decision but not a good or correct decision if the underlying data and information is crap or if the intelligence is not good. An AI that was not trained (or did not learn) correctly may have poor intelligence. A group of stupid people may get to the a decision/conclusion but that outcome might still be wrong.***

I wasn't thinking of the FTX case since I don't think it has anything to do with blockchain or any underlying tech. I was thinking about cases like Mt Gox. You can't run around saying how secure the system is when all you need is one key to get in, take the asset and disappear. It takes a bit more effort to get into my icloud account.

The guy was clearly not referring to AI when he mentioned networked intelligence, and as you say, AI today hasn't yet earned the use of the word intelligence. He may have meant group think, but if he did, it says something. We can share knowledge but sharing intelligence is far more difficult although not impossible.

[NYCfixie]

I wasn't thinking of the FTX case since I don't think it has anything to do with blockchain or any underlying tech. I was thinking about cases like Mt Gox. You can't run around saying how secure the system is when all you need is one key to get in, take the asset and disappear. It takes a bit more effort to get into my icloud account.

FTX and Mt Gox are similar in that one person stole/misused the keys to the kingdom. In Mt. Gox, the encryption was not broken, thus the underlying tech is not the problem. It depends how much security one decides to install to access the blockchain. Obviously in either case there was also not enough oversight.

"...a hacker allegedly used credentials from a Mt. Gox auditor's compromised computer to transfer a large number of bitcoins illegally to himself"

In FTX, it was the exchange's creator and in Mt. Gox it was a hacker who got access to a compromised computer thus giving him access to the the keys but in technical terms they used the same method (compromised credentials) to access the blockchain (and accounts) to steal users money.

Another issue is understanding the difference between "public" blockchains and "private" blockchains. As far as I know, public blockchains (distributed model) have not had issue with someone stealing the keys and running off whereas that has happened multiple times with private blockchains (non-distributed model) used by companies such as FTX and MT. Gox. In public blockchains, everyone has a copy of the database whereas in a private blockchain only a few people have a copy so it is more prone to theft/misuse/fraud but the issue is not that the blockchain is broken but rather someone has gained illegal access.

I was at a Cybersecurity conference on Friday, and the main topics of discussion/conversation/presentation are that most cybercrime is due to the "human element", multi factor authentication is better than not using it but it is not 100% secure, and biometric multi factor authentication is better but not always cost effective.

[vertical_doug]

"This is not an information age. It's an age of networked intelligence."

Don Tapscott, a blockchain evangelist, said it.

I think you need to go back and look at some of his old handwaving- wikinomics circa 2006 or so. In general, you have a person telling an interesting narrative, long on entertainment, short on substance.

Mt Gox, FTX are different, but all have the same weakness - people. Your cyber security fault also has the weakest link- people.
E-Toro or Reddit/Wallstreetbets all tried to crowdsource and social market ideas, but in reality they are just popularity sites, and often times, the crowd can be manipulated by the blackhats.

If you make a network transparent, then people will try to be the first to process the information and get a first mover advantage. You see this in the pico-style of trading on wallstreet- guys trying to out gun the other guy by pico-seconds.

You can change the technology, but the problem is not the technology, it is the constant of human nature.

[Chik]

FTX and Mt Gox are similar in that one person stole/misused the keys to the kingdom. In Mt. Gox, the encryption was not broken, thus the underlying tech is not the problem. It depends how much security one decides to install to access the blockchain. Obviously in either case there was also not enough oversight.

"...a hacker allegedly used credentials from a Mt. Gox auditor's compromised computer to transfer a large number of bitcoins illegally to himself"

In FTX, it was the exchange's creator and in Mt. Gox it was a hacker who got access to a compromised computer thus giving him access to the the keys but in technical terms they used the same method (compromised credentials) to access the blockchain (and accounts) to steal users money.

Another issue is understanding the difference between "public" blockchains and "private" blockchains. As far as I know, public blockchains (distributed model) have not had issue with someone stealing the keys and running off whereas that has happened multiple times with private blockchains (non-distributed model) used by companies such as FTX and MT. Gox. In public blockchains, everyone has a copy of the database whereas in a private blockchain only a few people have a copy so it is more prone to theft/misuse/fraud but the issue is not that the blockchain is broken but rather someone has gained illegal access.

I was at a Cybersecurity conference on Friday, and the main topics of discussion/conversation/presentation are that most cybercrime is due to the "human element", multi factor authentication is better than not using it but it is not 100% secure, and biometric multi factor authentication is better but not always cost effective.

You can't divorce an integral part like security from the main product when the main product is not saleable without it, particularly when a major selling point is its immutability. As far as distributed vs non-distributed is concerned, I have a hard time imagining anything of value (financial or otherwise) being put on a distributed network because I can't envisage any sane government allowing it from a regulatory standpoint.

You might want to read up on the FTX case. SBF didn't have to steal other people's cryptos when there was plenty of real money to take: https://substack.com/redirect/231ed2...6088b4?r=kji44

[fastupslowdown]

When a company has dozens of red flags and a total absence of controls nothing surprises me.

https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022...n-ftxs-audits/

[NYCfixie]

I am not going to debate the blockchain technology when most people simply do not understand it.

At its simplest explainable form, a blockchain is an electronic ledger that cannot be changed once a record is written to the database and agreed upon by all others with a copy of the database. The fact that it is not saleable in that form is meaningless. Many technologies are created but then have no commercial value. Security and other "add-ons" may be helpful or make it a saleable technology but those are add-ons are the ones that are causing problems but people are confounding the issues (often due to lack of understanding).

I have read up on both cases but obviously due to my job and education, I focus on the technology aspects. So, your point about there was enough other money to steal does not make sense when the reason you originally brought up Mt. Gox was to use it as an example of when blockchain technology does not work. Unfortunately you point is incorrect because it was not a failure of technology but rather a failure of "humans" which is the reason most cyber crime happens (according to the FBI and many others).

You can't divorce an integral part like security from the main product when the main product is not saleable without it, particularly when a major selling point is its immutability. As far as distributed vs non-distributed is concerned, I have a hard time imagining anything of value (financial or otherwise) being put on a distributed network because I can't envisage any sane government allowing it from a regulatory standpoint.

You might want to read up on the FTX case. SBF didn't have to steal other people's cryptos when there was plenty of real money to take: https://substack.com/redirect/231ed2...6088b4?r=kji44

[Chik]

"This is not an information age. It's an age of networked intelligence."

Don Tapscott, a blockchain evangelist, said it.

I think you need to go back and look at some of his old handwaving- wikinomics circa 2006 or so. In general, you have a person telling an interesting narrative, long on entertainment, short on substance.

Mt Gox, FTX are different, but all have the same weakness - people. Your cyber security fault also has the weakest link- people.
E-Toro or Reddit/Wallstreetbets all tried to crowdsource and social market ideas, but in reality they are just popularity sites, and often times, the crowd can be manipulated by the blackhats.

If you make a network transparent, then people will try to be the first to process the information and get a first mover advantage. You see this in the pico-style of trading on wallstreet- guys trying to out gun the other guy by pico-seconds.

You can change the technology, but the problem is not the technology, it is the constant of human nature.

ding ding ding

[Chik]

I am not going to debate the blockchain technology when most people simply do not understand it.

At its simplest explainable form, a blockchain is an electronic ledger that cannot be changed once a record is written to the database and agreed upon by all others with a copy of the database. The fact that it is not saleable in that form is meaningless. Many technologies are created but then have no commercial value. Security and other "add-ons" may be helpful or make it a saleable technology but those are add-ons are the ones that are causing problems but people are confounding the issues (often due to lack of understanding).

I have read up on both cases but obviously due to my job and education, I focus on the technology aspects. So, your point about there was enough other money to steal does not make sense when the reason you originally brought up Mt. Gox was to use it as an example of when blockchain technology does not work. Unfortunately you point is incorrect because it was not a failure of technology but rather a failure of "humans" which is the reason most cyber crime happens (according to the FBI and many others).

I think you're missing the point. This isn't about tech.

[Chik]

When a company has dozens of red flags and a total absence of controls nothing surprises me.

https://www.coindesk.com/layer2/2022...n-ftxs-audits/

Internal controls are one thing, but having no external oversight when so called blue chip VCs had large exposures is really quite stunning. SBF might be the perp here, but the VCs enabled him.

[fastupslowdown]

Internal controls are one thing, but having no external oversight when so called blue chip VCs had large exposures is really quite stunning. SBF might be the perp here, but the VCs enabled him.

I would disagree with the order. Not to minimize cops on the beat and a strong regulatory environment it starts with good internal controls. Even with the laws we have, the company broke some . This will be prosecuted.

On a side note, we had our Minsky moment with Crypto