- Feb 2019
On Evaluating Adversarial Robustness
大神 Goodfellow 参与的 paper 怎能不收藏呢？对抗样本始终是一个相当难啃的骨头。。。。
事实证明，正确评估针对对抗性案例的防御是非常困难的。尽管最近大量的工作试图设计出能够抵抗自适应攻击的防御措施，但很少有人成功；提出防御的大多数论文很快就被证明是错误的。作者认为一个很大的因素是执行安全评估的难度。在这篇论文中，作者讨论了方法论基础，回顾了普遍接受的最佳实践，并提出了评估对抗性示例的防御的新方法。这是一个开放性工作，贡献者包括Ian Goodfellow、Nicholas Carlini等人。
Towards a Deeper Understanding of Adversarial Losses
研究了各种对抗生成训练的 losses，还可以 know which one of them makes an adversarial loss better than another。
- Jan 2019
Image Transformation can make Neural Networks more robust against Adversarial Examples
- Dec 2018
This article in a blog on African Intellectual Property concerns summarizes one aspect of a report to the Human Rights Council in Geneva in 2015.
This resource, while written from the perspective of economists, explores how intellectual property laws (and historically uneven enforcement of the laws) have increased the divide between developing countries and wealthy, industrialized developed countries.
That said, for a thoughtful survey of how the commons, cultural and otherwise, might thrive inside of, or along with, with current conditions I recommend Peter Barnes’s book, Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons. One of Barnes’s points is that our debates about the future often imagine only two actors: the government and private business. Barnes suggests a third set, common property trusts (as, for example, the kind of land trusts devised by the Nature Conservancy). There is much to say about common property trusts but for now the point is simply that we already have a mix of cultural modes and should continue to have them going forward with, I hope, the commons recognized and strengthened.
One of the areas I find challenging in addressing Creative Commons culture is how Creative Commons relates to capitalistic culture (or rejects it). Creative Commons can be compatible with open market, but it can also challenge some of the fundamental tenants of it. Throughout the units, as I tried to imagine applications of Creative Commons, or making licensing decisions as a creative and academic, I found that I had questions about artists and how they can earn a living in this model, and how this model supported and challenged my role as a librarian in academe.
- Nov 2018
Analyzing the Noise Robustness of Deep Neural Networks
Interpreting Adversarial Robustness: A View from Decision Surface in Input Space
Spurious samples in deep generative models: bug or feature?
此文引言还算引人入胜的。全文似乎就为了阐述一件事情：Spurious samples are not simply errors but a feature of deep generative nets. 但我怎么觉得这是一句废话呢？不然你以为 generate model 是根据什么 generate samples 的呢？
Adversarial Attacks and Defences: A Survey
Is Robustness the Cost of Accuracy? -- A Comprehensive Study on the Robustness of 18 Deep Image Classification Models
这文帅了~ 信息丰富 超多的图~ 让人眼前一亮~
Obfuscated Gradients Give a False Sense of Security: Circumventing Defenses to Adversarial Examples
The researchers found that defenses against adversarial examples commonly use obfuscated gradients, which create a false sense of security but, in fact, can be easily circumvented. The study describes three ways in which defenses obfuscate gradients and shows which techniques can circumvent the defenses. The findings can help organizations that use defenses relying on obfuscated gradients to fortify their current methods.
WHAT’S THE CORE IDEA OF THIS PAPER?
- There are three common ways in which defenses obfuscate gradients:
- shattered gradients are nonexistent or incorrect gradients caused by the defense either intentionally (through non-differentiable operations) or unintentionally (through numerical instability);
- stochastic gradients are caused by randomized defenses;
vanishing/exploding gradients are caused by extremely deep neural network evaluation.
There are number of clues that something is wrong with the gradient including:
- one-step attacks performing better than iterative attacks;
- black-box attacks working better than white-box attacks;
- unbounded attacks not reaching 100% success;
- random sampling finding adversarial examples;
- increasing distortion bound not leading to increased success.
WHAT’S THE KEY ACHIEVEMENT?
- Demonstrating that most of the defense techniques used these days are vulnerable to attacks, namely:
- 7 out of 9 defense techniques accepted at ICLR 2018 cause obfuscated gradients;
- new attack techniques developed by researchers were able to successfully circumvent 6 defenses completely and 1 partially.
WHAT DOES THE AI COMMUNITY THINK?
- The paper won the Best Paper Award at ICML 2018, one of the key machine learning conferences.
- The paper highlights the strengths and weaknesses of current technology.
WHAT ARE FUTURE RESEARCH AREAS?
- To construct defenses with careful and thorough evaluation so that they can defend against not only existing attacks but also future attacks that may be developed.
WHAT ARE POSSIBLE BUSINESS APPLICATIONS?
- By using the guidance provided in the research paper, organizations can identify if their defenses rely on obfuscated gradients, and if necessary, switch to more robust methods.
Seamless Nudity Censorship: an Image-to-Image Translation Approach based on Adversarial Training
Generating Natural Adversarial Examples
Are adversarial examples inevitable?
现在关于对抗性的 paper 都要不可避免的谨慎对待啊~
Defensive Dropout for Hardening Deep Neural Networks under Adversarial Attacks
貌似就是利用 dropout 来防御对抗样本~ 然而前两天才看了 Goodfellow 在 cs231n 2017 Spring 上的报告提到说，一切用传统正则化技巧企图防御的手段都是失效的~当然包括 dropout~ 比如可以看看 Nicholas Carlini 的文章。
- Oct 2018
how do we help students navigate privacy issues in learning spaces augmented with social/digital media. There was a specific request for examples to walk students through this. Here is what I do.
I'm a little unnerved by the semi-legal nature of the "Interactive Project Release Form" but I think it's a great model (whether really legally enforceable or just a class constitution-type document).
- Aug 2018
- Apr 2018
Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.
It would be very interesting to discuss this and the surrounding passages in light of the armed standoff that occurred in either Oregon or Washington about a year ago regarding the use of federal lands for grazing purposes by the local ranchers.
Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.
Useful passage to point out the tension between "Civic virtue and the responsibility to the greater good (see end of passage) vs. individual property rights. Useful to frame discussions re: natural parks, utilitarian vs. preservationist perspectives on environmental policies, taxation policies & burdens, entitlements etc etc.
- Apr 2017
The ability to establish ownership claims to digital assets — of well-understood forms of intellectual property such as music, movies and books but also for emergent and increasingly critical ones such as computer code, digital art, user-generated data and metadata — will transform many of the 21st century’s largest negative externalities into a new asset class capable of powering the next economic revolution.
What is needed is a trustworthy, secure, and enduring property system that is flexible enough to incorporate digital properties into any community’s broader property rights traditions
a property is an asset plus a property title
A valid ownership claim functions as a “bundle of rights” for a specific property and can include such rights as:the right to exclusive possessionthe right to exclusive use and enclosurethe right to transfer ownership (conveyance)the right to use as collateral to secure a debt (hypothecation)the right to subdivide (partition)
- Feb 2017
From this time I understood the words abolition and abolitionist, and always drew near when that word was spoken, expecting to hear something of importance to myself and fellow-slaves.
"All that I know I have stolen" (1063).
- Nov 2016
Castro’s commitment to fighting racism in Cuba wasn’t as much an explicit mission as it was a convenient byproduct of adopting the Soviet model of governance — when you start to eliminate private property, mechanisms of systemic racism are rendered impotent.
I love this paragraph.
- Sep 2016
d Provider has a limited, nonexclusive license solely for the purpose of performing its obligations as outlined in the Agreeme
Here we are good and much better than, say, Genius:
When you post User Content to the Service or otherwise submit it to us, you hereby grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Genius an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense through multiple tiers) to use, reproduce, publicly perform, publicly display, modify, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part), create derivative works of, distribute and otherwise fully exploit all Intellectual Property Rights in and to such User Content for purposes of providing, operating and promoting the Service or otherwise conducting the business of Genius.
all intellectual property rights, shall remain the exclusive property of the [School/District],
This is definitely not the case. Even in private groups would it ever make sense to say this?
- Jul 2016
I could have easily chosen a different prepositional phrase. "Convivial Tools in an Age of Big Data.” Or “Convivial Tools in an Age of DRM.” Or “Convivial Tools in an Age of Venture-Funded Education Technology Startups.” Or “Convivial Tools in an Age of Doxxing and Trolls."
Or do we really even own ideas?), and why we would even fuss about ownership might suggest an attachment of monetary value to the shared thing. Or is it really about wanting to get credit? Can we get credit without staking ownership?
I think credit has a lot to do with it. Also, feeling like you "own" your idea is largely cultural. We live in society where just ideas alone are sellable (corporate world especially). We have been taught since college that you do not amount to anything without ideas even though your ideas are built upon ideas of others, we do not teach that kind of connectivity, we do not teach "collective knowledge." What we do teach is publishing a paper and copyrighting it. One of the most prominent questions I have from faculty I work with in regards to creating a public professional ePortfolio is "What if someone copies, steals my idea or paper?" and "How do I make it so that only particular people can see it?" I am sure stealing does happen because there is a lot of pressure in academia to "generate" ideas. And I am also thinking that publishing your copyrighted idea in a peer-reviewed or any other academic publishing instance gives your work "validity." But if the mind set we build in our students is ownership-oriented how can we expect anything else?
- Apr 2016
- Oct 2015
“You can’t have this horse. We want it,”
Just like that.. Knowing what kind of bond you can form with a horse, I'd be extremely upset if someone were to take one away that I'd had since I was a child just because they wanted it.
- Jul 2015
Sec. 15-7. - Injuring or defacing library property. Whoever willfully injures or defaces any book, newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, manuscript, or other property belonging to the city library by writing, marking, tearing, breaking, or otherwise mutilating shall be fined as provided in section 1-8. (Code 1964, amended, § 19.19(A)) Cross reference— Damage to public property, § 17-26. State Law reference— Criminal mischief, V.A.P.C. § 28.03; reckless damage of property, § 28.04.
Third, there are valid concerns about some aspects of GE agriculture, such as herbicides, monocultures, and patents. But none of these concerns is fundamentally about genetic engineering.
Totally. Whenever I end up in conversations about GMOs I steer the conversation toward monoculture and intellectual property. These are issues I have concerns about and I think the labeling wars are hurting our chances for useful dialog here. I don't want labeling. I want biodiversity.
Both of these works, she says, specifically sought a lawsuit from the estate of Margaret Mitchell.
- Jun 2014
If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.
- Feb 2014
The innate qualities of intellectual pr operty, however, in combination with INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 15 strong economic motivations have led U.S. intellectual property policy to operate according to rights - based, non - utilitarian theory, possibly as a result of lobbying (capture theory).
Lobbying has led to a rights-based non-utilitarian theory copyright policy in the US at the present time (2014).
The U.S. social contract establishes a utilitarian basis for protection of intellectual property rights: protection as a means of encouraging innovation.
The social contract of the US Constitution provides a utilitarian basis for protection of intellectual property rights.
As intellectual property lacks scarcity, and the protection of it fails the Lockean Proviso, there is no natural right to intellectual property. As such, the justification for intellectual property rights arises from the social con tract, and in the case of the United States, the Constitution.
The justification for intellectual property from the social contract established by the US Constitution; it otherwise has no justification by natural right because it fails the Lockean Proviso.
By contrast, any positive or negative effects that intellectual property rights have on the wider populace are diffused, and any individual member of the wider populace has little motive (and potentially insufficient means) to overco me the significant barriers to active political lobbying. As a result, the intrinsic trend is for intellectual INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 11 property holders to actively lobby, largely unopposed, for greater rights protections. (Fisher, 1999, Sect. II. C.)
Both positive and negative effects stemming from intellectual property rights to the wider populace are diffused, thus the wider populace has little motive to oppose changes to laws and policies that support intellectual property.
On one hand, there are infinite ideas, and so the taking of one idea as private property clearly leaves “enough,” and debatably “as good” for others (Locke, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 8 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).
This statement seems to me a stretch-- a very far stretch.
What does it mean to have "infinite ideas"? And how do you arrive at the judgments "enough" and "as good" here?
Ideas don't exist in isolation; they are not individual fruits to be plucked from the world of thought. Ideas are built upon other ideas. They are embedded within each other, juxtaposed one next to the other, stacked, remixed; varied one from the other, sometimes as a derivation, sometimes an inspiration.
And in the face of this, what is the notion of "creation"? Given a certain base of knowledge, there are some natural next steps that can be built from those basic building blocks.
Here we have to disentangle the notion of discovery from creation. I think maybe that, in part, is the notion of patents vs copyright, but in the land of software we seem to have a tangled mess.
Here, there is disagreement about whether intellectual property violates the Lockean Proviso.
Does the notion of intellectual property violate the Lockean Proviso?
The limit of any property rights that can be claimed in this manner are defined in the ‘Lockean Proviso’ which states that the aforementioned process of establishing private property only operates “when there is enoug h, and as good, left in common for others” (Bogart, 1985, p. 828; Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 27).
The Privatization of the Natural State Proponents also invoke Locke’s discussion of the making of private property from the natural state by the joining of one’s efforts to the natural state (Menell, 1999, p. 129). The argument goes that authors (ar tists, inventors, etc.) join their efforts to the natural state of undefined ideas, and through their efforts arrive at an intellectual work; and by that effort, they may make a legitimate claim on that intellectual work as their property (Menell, 1999, p. 129; Locke, 1690, Chap. V, Sect. 26).
these traditional property rights, as suggested by Locke, depend on the scarcity of that property (1995, n. pag.). I f ‘Joe’ owns property and ‘Sue’ acquires it, then Joe no longer has it, and Sue has harmed Joe (by stealing). Joe’s property is scarce.
This is understatement to be sure, but the debate has been principally between two theories: a utilitarian policy theory, and a rights - based , non - utilitarian property theory (Long, 1995, n.pag.) .
The debate in intellectual property law has centered around utilitarian policy theory and a rights-based non-utilitarian property theory.
U.S. intellectual property law originates (as law) from the Constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution makes copyright and patent law possible (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: POLICY FOR INNOVATION 4 respective Writings and Discoveries”) ,
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 makes copyright and patent law possible.
This paper establishes cause to suspect that current intellectual property policy overstep s utilitarian justification, and suggests that a clearer distinction should be drawn between the proper role of U.S. law in intellectual property (that which promotes innovation) and moral questions of creator’s rights.
The U . S . Co nstitution firmly grounds the proper role of intellectual property policy as utilitarian .
Identify where/how this ground is established.
Keywords : anticommons, copyright, intellectual property, Lockean Proviso, patent, property rights, state of nature, trademark, utilitarian theory
- US Constitution
- incentive mechanisms
- non-utilitarian theory
- traditional property rights
- natural state
- utilitarian theory
- private property
- natural right
- rights-based non-utilitarian theory
- intellectual property
- infinite ideas
- economic motivations
- utilitarian basis
- capture theory
- cause to suspect
- Fairness Theory
- US intellectual property law
- Lockean Proviso
- property rights
- social contract
- state of nature
- utilitarian justification
- global context
A LOCKEAN JUSTIFICATION
Locke's Two Treatises of Government
A universal definition of intellectual property might begin by identifying it as nonphysical property which stems from, is identified as, and whose value is based upon some idea or ideas. Furthermore, there must be some additional element of novelty. Indeed, the object, or res, of intellectual property may be so new that it is unknown to anyone else. The novelty, however, does not have to be absolute. What is important is that at the time of propertization the idea is thought to be generally unknown. The re
Intellectual property cannot be common currency in the intellectual life of the society at the time of propertization.
What constitutes society at this point; do small groups and communities suffice or does it have to be popularly known beyond a small few?
At the most practical level, intellectual property is the property created or recognized by the existing legal regimes of copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret. n17 We also must include property recognized by similar legal regimes. For example, federal law now protect original semiconductor masks. n18 "Gathered information" is another genre of intellectual property. Copyright law protects the particular arrangement of the contents of telephone directories and reference works, n19 while other forms of gathered information may have quasi-property status under International News Service v. Associated Press. n20
Intellectual property is the property created or recognized by the existing legal regimes:
- trade secret
And other legal regimes including:
- semiconductor masks
- gathered information
- particular arrangements of directories and reference works
- quasi-property status
Like most subjects, intellectual property has grey zones on the periphery, such as the right to publicity -- whether, in property style, someone can control his public image.
Right to publicity
inasmuch as coming to own intellectual property is often tied to being well-educated. If people become increasingly progressive with increasing education, intellectual property confers economic power on men and women of talent who generally tend to reform society, not because they are haphazard Burkian goblins, but because they have well-informed convictions.
ctual property may be a liberal influence on society
Intellectual property may be a liberal influence on society.
The breakthrough patent that produces a Polaroid company is more the exception than the rule. The rule is the modestly successful novelist, the minor [*292] poet, and the university researcher -- all of whom may profit by licensing or selling their creations.
Breakthrough patent of Polaroid (the exception) vs modestly successful novelist (the more common case)
ecause such accumulation is less typical, the realm of intellectual property has less of the laborer/capitalist hierarchy of Marxist theory.
In the final analysis, intellectual property shares much of the origins and orientation of all forms of property. At the same time, however, it is a more neutral institution than other forms of property: its limited scope and duration tend to prevent the very accumulation of wealth that Burke championed.
One cannot call the history of intellectual property a purely proletarian struggle. While ancient Roman laws afforded a form of copyright protection to authors, n14 the rise of Anglo-Saxon copyright was a saga of publishing interests attempting to protect a concentrated market and a central government attempting to apply a subtle form of censorship to the new technology of the printing press.
One cannot call the history of intellectual property a purely proletarian struggle.
But this is only part of the truth. Much intellectual property is produced only after considerable financial investment, whether it be in the research laboratory or in the graduate education of the scientist using the facility.
Intellectual property is more egalitarian than property in that anyone may obtain it for limited duration, however that is only part of the truth, and in practice it is more likely that most intellectual property is produced only after considerable financial investment.
The conservative influence of property does not, however, depend on primogeniture or even inheritance -- features that gave property a valuable role in Burke's political system as well as in the political theories advanced by Hegel and Plato. n11 Within a single lifetime, property tends to make the property owner more risk-averse. This aversion applies both to public decisions [*291] affecting property, such as taxes, and to personal decisions that might diminish one's property, such as investment strategies and career choices. Inheritance and capital appreciation are only additional characteristics of traditional notions of property that tend to stabilize social stratification.
In the eighteenth century, Edmund Burke argued that property stabilized society and prevented political and social turmoil that, he believed, would result from a purely meritocratic order. n8 Property served as a counterweight protecting the class of persons who possessed it against competition from nonpropertied people of natural ability and talent. To Burke, the French National Assembly -- dominated by upstart lawyers from the provinces -- exemplified the risk of disorder and inexperience of an unpropertied leadership. n9 In contrast, the British parliament, a proper mix of talented commoners and propertied Lords, ruled successfully.
Intellectual property is far more egalitarian. Of limited duration and obtainable by anyone, intellectual property can be seen as a reward, an empowering instrument, for the talented upstarts Burke sought to restrain. Intellectual property is often the propertization of what we call "talent." It tends to shift the balance toward the talented newcomers whom Burke mistrusted
intellectual property is often the propertization of what we call talent.
In many quarters, property is viewed as an inherently conservative concept --
a social device for maintenance of the status quo
WHAT COUNTS AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?
The Philosophy of Intellectual Property
- status quo
- intellectual property
- time of propertization
- eighteenth century
- conservative influence
- capital appreciation
- liberal influence
- final analysis
- week 2
- fairness and personality theories
- laborercapitalist hierarchy
- social stratification
- British parliament
- legal regimes
- Marxist theory
- Edmund Burke
- empowering instrument
- nonphysical property
- grey zones
- accumulation of wealth
- right to publicity
- limited scope
- limited duration
- universal definition
- meritocratic order
- proletarian struggle
- global context
- neutral institution