I’m confused by your claim that the other examples aren’t real… That seems so obviously false that maybe I misunderstand.
The examples:
The vector thing. I take it you’re not disputing the math, but saying the math doesn’t describe a situation that happens in life?
Verbal abuse. This one totally happens. Happened to me, happened to lots of other people. There’s lots of books that describe what this looks like.
2.5. General social pressure. Don’t people get social pressured into actions, roles, and opinions via shallowbroad channels all the time without being aware it’s happening and without being able to say when or how it happened?
DDoS. I assume this one happens, I’ve heard people discuss it happening and it’s got a wiki page and everything. Are you saying there aren’t DDoS attacks? Or are you saying that the person being DDoSed is aware that they are being DDoSed and aware of each user request? I agree with that; in this case the threshold isn’t “did they notice”, it’s more like “is this particular user unambiguously part of the attack, such that it makes sense to ban them or sue them”. Regardless of that, it has the underlying anastomosis structure.
Systemic oppression. Are you claiming this isn’t a thing that happens? To get a sense for what it’s like, you could look at for example Alice’s Adventures in Numberland which details a bunch of examples—subtle and not—of sexism in academia, experienced by the number theorist Alice Silverberg. Maybe you’re saying it doesn’t count because there’s no agent?
Adversarial image attacks. Are you saying the claims in the paper aren’t true, or are you saying it’s not an example of a sum-threshold attack because the perturbation is fragile / the coordinates depend on each other for their effect (plausible to me, but also plausibly it is), or for some other reason (what reason)?
Sorry, I should learn not to post on mobile—I end up not thinking or explaining myself well. It was simply wrong to say “not real”.
There are three different aspects to two levels of phenomenon we’re talking about, some of which are similar, but not all of which have the same focus as the frog parable, which -is- false.
The levels are about the state of things vs changes in the state and predictions of future state.
The aspects are more important. There’s noticing something, fixing something, and assigning blame for something. The frog example and “attack” framing send to be mostly about blame and responsibility.
The true behavior of frogs in heated pots (they jump out) shows that noticing and fixing isn’t a problem. The other examples are pretty commonly noticed (recently, at least), but not well-understood enough to know how to address. It may be that blame plays a part in addressing some. But I suspect it’s not the most important part.
Thanks, I didn’t know the frog thing wasn’t true.
I’m confused by your claim that the other examples aren’t real… That seems so obviously false that maybe I misunderstand.
The examples:
The vector thing. I take it you’re not disputing the math, but saying the math doesn’t describe a situation that happens in life?
Verbal abuse. This one totally happens. Happened to me, happened to lots of other people. There’s lots of books that describe what this looks like. 2.5. General social pressure. Don’t people get social pressured into actions, roles, and opinions via shallowbroad channels all the time without being aware it’s happening and without being able to say when or how it happened?
DDoS. I assume this one happens, I’ve heard people discuss it happening and it’s got a wiki page and everything. Are you saying there aren’t DDoS attacks? Or are you saying that the person being DDoSed is aware that they are being DDoSed and aware of each user request? I agree with that; in this case the threshold isn’t “did they notice”, it’s more like “is this particular user unambiguously part of the attack, such that it makes sense to ban them or sue them”. Regardless of that, it has the underlying anastomosis structure.
Systemic oppression. Are you claiming this isn’t a thing that happens? To get a sense for what it’s like, you could look at for example Alice’s Adventures in Numberland which details a bunch of examples—subtle and not—of sexism in academia, experienced by the number theorist Alice Silverberg. Maybe you’re saying it doesn’t count because there’s no agent?
Adversarial image attacks. Are you saying the claims in the paper aren’t true, or are you saying it’s not an example of a sum-threshold attack because the perturbation is fragile / the coordinates depend on each other for their effect (plausible to me, but also plausibly it is), or for some other reason (what reason)?
Sorry, I should learn not to post on mobile—I end up not thinking or explaining myself well. It was simply wrong to say “not real”.
There are three different aspects to two levels of phenomenon we’re talking about, some of which are similar, but not all of which have the same focus as the frog parable, which -is- false.
The levels are about the state of things vs changes in the state and predictions of future state.
The aspects are more important. There’s noticing something, fixing something, and assigning blame for something. The frog example and “attack” framing send to be mostly about blame and responsibility.
The true behavior of frogs in heated pots (they jump out) shows that noticing and fixing isn’t a problem. The other examples are pretty commonly noticed (recently, at least), but not well-understood enough to know how to address. It may be that blame plays a part in addressing some. But I suspect it’s not the most important part.