Engineering permanence in finite systems

Daniel Bilar

doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.2454v1

Engineering permanence in finite systems

Daniel Bilar

Information Systems, Norwich University, Northfield, Vermont, USA

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2454v1

Published: 2016-09-17
Accepted: 2016-09-17

Subject Areas: Human-Computer Interaction, Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems, Emerging Technologies, Optimization Theory and Computation, Software Engineering
Keywords: invariants, genetic algorithm, optimization, commensurability, cybernetics, category theory, quantum theory, IBM z/OS, Windows, zero-knowledge protocols

Copyright: © 2016 Bilar
Licence: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

Cite this article: Bilar D. 2016. Engineering permanence in finite systems. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2454v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2454v1

Abstract

The man-machine integration era (MMIE) is marked by sensor ubiquity, whose readings map human beings to finite numbers. These numbers - processed by continuously changing, optimizing/learning, finite precision, closed loop, distributed systems - are used to drive decisions such as insurance rates, prison sentencing, health care allocations and probation guidelines. Optimization and system parameter tuning is increasingly left to machine learning and applied AI. One challenges we face is thus: Ensuring the indelibility, the permanence, the infinite value of human beings as optimization-resistant invariants in such system environments.

Author Comment

This extended abstract (1 page, 2 column page limit excl. references) has been submitted to IEEE SecDev 2016 http://secdev.ieee.org/ as a lightning talk on Sept 16, 2016.

Feedback on this revision

0

3313 days ago - Daniel Bilar

Daniel Bilar (Sept 20, 2016):

This extended abstract submission was rejected for a 5 minute lightning talk at SecDev 2016. With the permission of the PC chair, I am posting the unedited, original reviewer comments below. This serves three pedagogical purposes

1) To encourage aspiring authors not to be discouraged by tone, substance and mark of reviews

2) To constructively address some points in the review

3) Lessons learned and pitfalls to avoid when submitting extended abstracts

Points 2) and 3) will be shortly forthcoming in this feedback section.

-DB

==========================================================================

SecDev '16 Review #80A

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paper #80: Engineering Permanence In Finite Systems

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall merit: D. Reject

Expertise: Z. I am not an expert; my evaluation

is that of an informed outsider

===== Paper summary =====

This paper presents a Marxist critique of Bentham and Kant, as applied to

computing systems.

===== Comments for author =====

The topic could be interesting, and I encourage the author to expound it in

a cogent argument.

However, the paper as submitted is a mishmash of gobbledygook. I can't

tell what this sentence means or what point the writer is trying to make:

"Communicating with IBM mainframe’s z/OS EBCDIC encoding constitutes an

ASCII conversion, and IBM CKD disk format (via ubiquitous FBA) an Inception

incentivization nightmare, respectively [10]–[12]." The same goes for much

of the paper. For example, the paper criticizes optimization frameworks

that might harm some person's well-being for the 'greater' [author's scare

quotes] benefit such as CO2 reduction. In other words, reducing someone's

profits or their entertainment options is unacceptable even though CO2

reduction will lead to a reduction in deaths. This is an argument for an

unfettered free market, not for the sanctity of life as other parts of the

paper suggest. One could make an interesting argument either way, but I

simply cannot make this paper cohere.

Another serious problem is that the paper uses many terms without defining

them, or uses them in a non-standard way that will be confusing to a

computer scientist: canonicalization and incommensurable are two examples

from the title of section I, but every paragraph contains multiple ones

that I marked on my copy.

===========================================================================

SecDev '16 Review #80B

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paper #80: Engineering Permanence In Finite Systems

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall merit: D. Reject

Expertise: Z. I am not an expert; my evaluation

is that of an informed outsider

===== Paper summary =====

This paper discusses optimization of man-machine integration systems. The problem discussed is that optimizations where a life of a human being is sacrificed for some other benefit.

===== Comments for author =====

The paper seems more appropriate for a venue on philosophical or ethical issues. I don't think it fits in SecDev about how to build secure systems.

===========================================================================

SecDev '16 Review #80C

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paper #80: Engineering Permanence In Finite Systems

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall merit: B. OK paper, but I will not champion

Expertise: Y. I am knowledgeable in this area,

but not an expert

===== Paper summary =====

This is an interesting, thought provoking glimpse at an interesting problem. It is also way too short to do its subject justice.

===== Comments for author =====

Interesting idea compressed into too small a space.

3305 days ago - Daniel Bilar

Here is the SecDev 16 review form and the review criteria. Notice that no special instructions are given for one page max extended abstract submissions.

==+== SecDev '16 Paper Review Form

==-== DO NOT CHANGE LINES THAT START WITH "==+==" UNLESS DIRECTED!

==-== For further guidance, or to upload this file when you are done, go to:

==-== https://secdev16.hotcrp.com/offline

==+== =====================================================================

==+== Begin Review

==+== Reviewer: Adam Antelope

==+== Paper Number

(Enter paper number here)

==+== Review Readiness

==-== Enter "Ready" if the review is ready for others to see:

Ready

==+== A. Overall merit

==-== Choices: A. Good paper, I will champion it

==-== B. OK paper, but I will not champion it

==-== C. Weak paper, though I will not fight strongly against it

==-== D. Reject

==-== Enter the letter of your choice:

(Your choice here)

==+== B. Expertise

==-== Expert = "I have written a paper on one or more of this paper's

==-== topics"

==-== Knowledgeable = "I follow the literature on this paper's topic(s)

==-== but may have missed relevant developments"

==-== Some familiarity = "I have a passing knowledge of the topic(s) but

==-== do not follow the relevant literature"

==-== Choices: X. I am an expert in this area

==-== Y. I am knowledgeable in this area, but not an expert

==-== Z. I am not an expert; my evaluation is that of an informed

==-== outsider

==-== Enter the letter of your choice:

(Your choice here)

==+== C. Confidence (hidden from authors)

==-== Enter your confidence in your review: this will not be shown to

==-== authors. Note that this is orthogonal to expertise! For example,

==-== you can be an expert and not be confident in your review, and vice

==-== versa. In particular, it's absolutely fine to be strongly

==-== confident in your review and yet not be an expert by the

==-== definition above.

==-==

==-== Strongly confident = "I understood the paper in depth"

==-== Confident = "I understood the paper to a large extent"

==-== Not confident = "There are essential elements of the paper I could

==-== not penetrate"

==-== Choices: 1. Strongly confident

==-== 2. Confident

==-== 3. Not confident

==-== Enter the number of your choice:

(Your choice here)

==+== D. Paper summary

==-== Provide an overview of the paper that can serve as an explanation

==-== of the paper for other committee members. What problem does it

==-== address? What are the paper’s key insights? What are the paper’s

==-== key scientific and technical contributions? (Comments about the

==-== content should appear in the "Comments for author" and/or

==-== "Comments for PC" fields below.)

==-==

==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.

==+== E. Comments for author

==-== Please first summarize your reasons for favoring acceptance or

==-== rejection of the paper, then explain these reasons in detail.

==-== Focus on constructive comments that will help authors improve

==-== their paper. Specifically call out any questions that you would

==-== like addressed by the authors in their response.

==-==

==-== Consider the following in your review: Is the paper

==-== well-motivated? What problem does it address, and is it an

==-== important problem? Does the paper significantly advance the state

==-== of the art or break new ground? What are the paper’s key insights?

==-== What are the paper’s key scientific and technical contributions?

==-== Does the paper credibly support its claimed contributions? What

==-== did you learn from the paper? Is the paper sufficiently clear that

==-== most SecDev attendees will be able to read and understand it? Does

==-== the paper clearly establish its context with respect to prior

==-== work? Does it discuss prior work accurately and completely? What

==-== impact is this paper likely to have (on theory & practice)?

==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.

==+== F. Comments for PC (hidden from authors)

==-== Markdown styling and LaTeX math supported.

==+== Scratchpad (for unsaved private notes)

==+== End Review

0

3306 days ago - Roberto Maffei

Dear Daniel,

I have caught this second PeerJ’s Preprint of yours and I dare to add my comment to it, too. I confirm my interest in your works; I perceive they contain something like a glimpse beyond the visible horizon on some fundamental questions; for me, reading them is always a great experience. My problem is I cannot share such glimpse because of the hard to be interpreted written form of your paper.

I’m also going to post a question; apart from it, in this feedback space I want to focus just the question of the written form. Our research has found some confirmations of an old intuition: in human communication the content is what has to be transmitted; however, the effect of a communication (its pragmatic result, its actual comprehensibility, the receiver’s reaction it triggers) is in large part due to its form (the relational aspect if face-to-face, the written form in letters or e-mails as well as books and articles). The reference is to the Pragmatic of Human Communication model (Paul Watzlawick and the Palo Alto Research Center).

I think it would be very fine if you could write an extended version of your thoughts (in the end, possibly, submitting it for publication). I encourage you to do this because the subjects you tackle are really worth the effort. The reality of applied informatics, and its medium- and long-range consequences, seem to be quite different from what end-users know and expect; all this would deserve deepening and diffusion in a way that could result available for a large public.

With my compliments and best regards

Roberto

Engineering permanence in finite systems

Abstract

Author Comment

Feedback on other revisions

Feedback on this revision

0

0

Add your feedback

Feedback on other revisions

Feedback on this revision

0

0

Add your feedback

Top referrals unique visitors

Share this preprint

Metrics

Download article