itchat 道歉

When cookies were the progeny of “magic cookies”, they were seemingly innocuous packets of e-commerce data that stored a user’s partial transaction state on their computer. It wasn’t disclosed that you were playing a beneficial part in a much larger system, and you didn’t have a choice on accepting your role.

當(dāng)cookie是“魔術(shù)cookie”的后代時(shí)，它們似乎是無(wú)害的電子商務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)包，它們?cè)谟?jì)算機(jī)上存儲(chǔ)了用戶的部分交易狀態(tài)。 沒有透露您在更大的系統(tǒng)中扮演著有益的角色，并且您沒有選擇接受角色的選擇。

Imagine a stranger slipping a packet into your pocket. And then that stranger regularly slips their hand back into your pocket to check on it, because unbeknownst to you that packet has the power to gather and store all sorts of information about you. For over two whole years, some (ingenious) weirdos were doing this virtually unnoticed until the Financial Times reported on the phenomena in 1997. Unnerving? Sure. Yummy? Nope.

想象一個(gè)陌生人將一小包滑入你的口袋。 然后那個(gè)陌生人經(jīng)常把手伸回你的口袋里檢查它，因?yàn)槟悴恢滥莻€(gè)小包有能力收集和存儲(chǔ)關(guān)于你的各種信息。 在過去的兩年中，直到1997年英國(guó)《 金融時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道這種現(xiàn)象之前，一些(怪異的)怪異者幾乎沒有注意到這一點(diǎn)。 當(dāng)然。 好吃？ 不。

Today those weirdos are a lot more obvious: I bump into them at least 10 times a day. What was supposed to transform the internet into a safer, more privacy-preserving place — making this activity conspicuous and consensual via cookie consent banners — is just exposing what an unpleasant place the internet can be.

今天，這些怪異現(xiàn)象變得更加明顯：我每天至少碰到10次。 旨在將互聯(lián)網(wǎng)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)楦踩?#xff0c;更具隱私保護(hù)的場(chǎng)所的目的(通過Cookie同意橫幅使該活動(dòng)引人注目并達(dá)成共識(shí) )只是在揭露互聯(lián)網(wǎng)可能令人不快的地方。

Abzu.ai上沒有cookie同意橫幅 (There are no cookie consent banners on Abzu.ai)

There are no cookie consent banners on Abzu.ai because we only use strictly necessary cookies and session cookies. Check out our privacy policy — it’s pretty straightforward.

Abzu.ai上沒有cookie同意橫幅，因?yàn)槲覀儍H使用嚴(yán)格必要的cookie和會(huì)話cookie。 查看我們的隱私政策 -這非常簡(jiǎn)單。

Our cookie policy is simple: Start with a question, not with data.

我們的Cookie政策很簡(jiǎn)單： 從問題開始，而不是數(shù)據(jù)。

Data is universally available. What is scarce is the foresight to synthesize information from your data. You’re constantly being mined and monitored in innumerous domains for innumerable ilk of data, because starting with data is unscientifically easy. Asking the question first, building a model to test the hypothesis: now that’s the hard part.

數(shù)據(jù)是普遍可用的。 缺乏從 數(shù)據(jù)中 綜合信息的遠(yuǎn)見卓識(shí) 。 您會(huì)在無(wú)數(shù)域中不斷挖掘和監(jiān)視大量數(shù)據(jù)，因?yàn)閺臄?shù)據(jù)開始非常簡(jiǎn)單。 首先提出問題，建立一個(gè)模型來(lái)檢驗(yàn)假設(shè)：現(xiàn)在這是最困難的部分。

When data drives operations and decisions.當(dāng)數(shù)據(jù)驅(qū)動(dòng)運(yùn)營(yíng)和決策時(shí)。

In a vacuum of critical thinking by controllers — and until recently a vacuum of enforced policies — the equation reversed. The direction of computation should have been: “What data do we need to answer our question?” But in an abundance of raw material (your personal data), controllers floated along a lazy river fed by tributaries of data-collection and allowed the flow of data to define what to do next. Data drove operations and decisions. When controllers let data tell them what to do next, data simply said it wanted more data.

在管制員批判性思維的真空中-直到最近，在強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行政策的真空中 -方程逆轉(zhuǎn)了。 計(jì)算的方向應(yīng)該是：“我們需要什么數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)回答我們的問題？” 但是，在大量的原材料(您的個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù))中，控制器沿著一條由數(shù)據(jù)收集支流支配的懶惰河漂浮著，并允許數(shù)據(jù)流定義下一步要做什么。 數(shù)據(jù)推動(dòng)運(yùn)營(yíng)和決策。 當(dāng)控制器讓數(shù)據(jù)告訴他們下一步該怎么做時(shí)，數(shù)據(jù)只是說(shuō)它想要更多的數(shù)據(jù)。

“You wanna talk about stress? You wanna talk about stress?! Okay! I’ve stumbled onto a major company conspiracy, Mac , how ‘bout that for stress?” — Charlie“你想談?wù)搲毫?#xff1f; 您想談?wù)搲毫?#xff1f; 好的！ 我偶然發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)主要的公司陰謀，Mac，這是如何“減輕壓力？” 查理

But controllers forgot to consider that data doesn’t imply correlation. It’s easy to assume or overestimate a link between variables. Continue adding personal information to the equation, and now it’s conclusion-by-conspiracy-wall because dependencies and critical thinking didn’t originate the function. If it sounds like you’re talking crazy or jumping to conclusions, you probably just need more data.

但是控制器忘記考慮到數(shù)據(jù)并不意味著相關(guān) 。 很容易假設(shè)或高估變量之間的聯(lián)系。 繼續(xù)將個(gè)人信息添加到等式中，現(xiàn)在這是按陰謀論得出的結(jié)論，因?yàn)橐来骊P(guān)系和批判性思維并非源自此功能。 如果聽起來(lái)您是在瘋狂地談?wù)撛掝}或正在得出結(jié)論，那么您可能只需要更多數(shù)據(jù)。

I’ve been that controller: the marketing professional who rejected Occam’s razor and thoughtful planning. Instead I embraced unnecessary complexity and an overabundance of data simply because I could, and because users let me. Friendly interfaces and, frankly, conveniences in consumption journeys obscured the computational misdirection (data first, questions later) and the magnitude of what was going on.

我一直是那個(gè)控制者：拒絕Occam的剃須刀和周到的計(jì)劃的營(yíng)銷專家。 相反，我之所以接受不必要的復(fù)雜性和數(shù)據(jù)過多是因?yàn)槲铱梢?#xff0c;并且因?yàn)橛脩粼试S我。 友好的界面以及坦率的說(shuō)，在消費(fèi)旅程中的便利性掩蓋了計(jì)算的誤導(dǎo)(首先是數(shù)據(jù)，隨后是問題)以及正在發(fā)生的事情。

Granted, some really interesting interrelated behaviors surfaced because we are mostly predictable beings for all our impulsive and irrational behavior. But without a hypothesis to solve, or any forethought, there is no promise that you’ll generalize correctly. And there are consequences to allowing companies such intimacy and accessibility into so many aspects of our lives — consequences to playing god with big systems.

當(dāng)然，出現(xiàn)了一些非常有趣的相互關(guān)聯(lián)的行為，因?yàn)槲覀儗?duì)于所有沖動(dòng)和非理性行為都是可以預(yù)見的。 但是，如果沒有要解決的假設(shè)或任何預(yù)先考慮，就無(wú)法保證會(huì)正確地進(jìn)行概括。 允許公司如此親密和可訪問性進(jìn)入我們生活的許多方面會(huì)產(chǎn)生后果，這是在大型系統(tǒng)中扮演上帝的后果 。

以人為本的技術(shù)意味著放棄上帝模式 (Human-centric technology means giving up God mode)

We’ve been creating new tools but for the same old urges. We’re still trying to play god, to take and hoard and monitor more than we should before we have divined a direction. Is anyone surprised that our inventions reflect our biases, avarice, and prejudices?

我們一直在創(chuàng)建新工具，但出于相同的舊追求。 我們?nèi)匀辉趪L試神，要占卜和監(jiān)視比我們確定方向之前更多的事情。 有人會(huì)對(duì)我們的發(fā)明反映出我們的偏見 ， 貪婪和偏見感到驚訝嗎？

“Likely crash and kill us all.” — Wash“很可能崩潰并殺死我們所有人。” - 洗

When we talk about making humane tech or human-centered AI, what we really mean is giving up God mode. We mean making decisions thoughtfully and responsibly.

當(dāng)我們談?wù)撝圃煲匀藶楸镜募夹g(shù)或以人為本的AI時(shí)，我們真正的意思是放棄上帝模式。 我們的意思是周到負(fù)責(zé)的決策 。

Metering our activities doesn’t mean we throttle possibilities or become narrow-minded! It means that we become more of our best selves: communal rather than individual, explorers over conquerors, hunters instead of gatherers, creative in lieu of one-track-minded.

對(duì)我們的活動(dòng)進(jìn)行計(jì)量并不意味著我們會(huì)扼制可能性或變得狹narrow！ 這意味著我們更多地成為了自己 ：集體而非個(gè)人，征服者的探索者，獵人而不是收集者，富有創(chuàng)造力，而不是一心一意。

At Abzu, we’re for lean data and human-centric technology. We’re for self-organization. We’re not for control by external agents, which is why we’ll never ask for anything we don’t need.

在Abzu，我們追求精益數(shù)據(jù)和以人為本的技術(shù)。 我們是為了自我組織。 我們不希望由外部代理控制，這就是為什么我們永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)索要不需要的東西的原因。

We start with questions, and we answer through data, not by ineffectively digging through limitless data sets.

我們從問題開始，然后通過數(shù)據(jù)回答，而不是無(wú)效地挖掘無(wú)限的數(shù)據(jù)集。

We listen to our users to get a sense of their needs. We conduct personalized interviews. We hand-hold, we white-glove, and we hug because we embrace our humanity. And we firmly believe we aren’t the crazy ones.

我們傾聽用戶的聲音，以了解他們的需求。 我們進(jìn)行個(gè)性化采訪。 我們握住，白色手套，擁抱，因?yàn)槲覀儞肀祟悺?我們堅(jiān)信我們不是瘋子。

翻譯自: https://medium.com/abzuai/apologies-for-our-humanity-c957ff721a59

itchat 道歉

總結(jié)

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的itchat 道歉_人类的“道歉”的全部?jī)?nèi)容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。

如果覺得生活随笔網(wǎng)站內(nèi)容還不錯(cuò)，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。