Can AI help us identify who the real authors of classic literature?
According to MIT, the answer is yes. In a recent, article they noted how machine learning was used to identify how much a co-author helped fill in the banks for Shakespeare's Henry VIII. They had long suspected that John Fletcher was the individual but couldn't identify what passages he wrote into the play.
Petr Plecháč at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague trained the algorithms using plays that Fletcher that corresponded with the time that play was written because "because an author’s literary style can change throughout his or her lifetime, it is important to ensure that all works have the same style".
Based on his analysis, it appears half the play is written by Fletcher.
The experiment is a proof-of-concept that there is a certain linguistic signature to how people author things. In a sense, it means we have a unique pattern when it comes to how we construct sentences. With respect to the experiment run by Dr. Plecháč, the algorithm was able to detect what was written Fletcher because he "often writes ye instead of you, and ’em instead of them. He also tended to add the word sir or still or next to a standard pentameter line to create an extra sixth syllable."
Can this be used within an audit?
A paper co-authored by Dr. Kevin Moffitt of Rutgers University entitled "Identification of Fraudulent Financial Statements Using Linguistic Credibility Analysis" found just that. In the paper, they explained how they used a "decision support system called Agent99 Analyzer" to "test for linguistic differences between fraudulent and non-fraudulent MD&As". The decision support system was configured to identify linguistic cues that are used by "deceivers". The papers cites as examples of how deceivers when they speak "display elevated uncertainty, share fewer details, provide more spatio-temporal details, and use less diverse and less complex language than truthtellers".
The result?
The algorithm had "modest success in classification results demonstrates that linguistic models of deception are potentially useful in discriminating deception and managerial fraud in financial statements".
Results like these are a good indication of how the audit profession can move beyond the traditional audit procedures.
Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Larry and Sergei's Exit from Google: How did they get from 'Don't Be Evil' to 'Get Rich or Die Trying'?
Larry Page and Sergey Brin have left the building.
The two founders who built the information empire Alphabet Inc. have left Google. As they noted in their farewell post, Sundar Pichai will now become CEO of both Google and Alphabet Inc. They also pocketed a couple billion or so for their troubles.
I write this post with mixed feelings.
As someone who started at university the year the Internet became commercialized, I witnessed the rise of Google from a number of many search-engine to the only one that you use. And I've written previously about this experience.
But reality is reality: Google doesn't look like the company it used to be.
They began with their motto: "Don't be evil". As noted here the idea, per Paul Buchheit (Googler #23). was not to be evil like "those other companies":
"It just sort of occurred to me that “Don’t be evil” is kind of funny. It’s also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent."
And now it's arguable that Google has become one of "those other companies".
In fact, they officially abandoned the "Don't be evil" motto to the less aspirational "do the right thing."
"Most notably, Google has faced questions for years about exercising its market power to squash rivals, infringing on its users’ privacy rights, favoring its own business affiliates in search results, and using patent law to create barriers to competition. Even Republican senators like Orrin Hatch have called out Google for its practices.
In 2012, staff at the Federal Trade Commission recommended filing antitrust charges after determining that Google was engaging in anti-competitive tactics and abusing its monopoly. A staff report that was later leaked said Google’s conduct “has resulted — and will result — in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets.”
The Wall Street Journal noted that Google’s White House visits increased right around that time. And in 2013, the presidentially appointed commissioners of the FTC overrode their staff, voting unanimously not to file any charges.
Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said the administration “has been a huge help” to Google both by protecting it from attempts to limit its market power and by blocking privacy legislation. “Google has been able to thwart regulatory scrutiny in terms of anti-competitive practices, and has played a key role in ensuring that the United States doesn’t protect at all the privacy of its citizens and its consumers,” Chester said."
The two founders who built the information empire Alphabet Inc. have left Google. As they noted in their farewell post, Sundar Pichai will now become CEO of both Google and Alphabet Inc. They also pocketed a couple billion or so for their troubles.
I write this post with mixed feelings.
As someone who started at university the year the Internet became commercialized, I witnessed the rise of Google from a number of many search-engine to the only one that you use. And I've written previously about this experience.
But reality is reality: Google doesn't look like the company it used to be.
They began with their motto: "Don't be evil". As noted here the idea, per Paul Buchheit (Googler #23). was not to be evil like "those other companies":
"It just sort of occurred to me that “Don’t be evil” is kind of funny. It’s also a bit of a jab at a lot of the other companies, especially our competitors, who at the time, in our opinion, were kind of exploiting the users to some extent."
And now it's arguable that Google has become one of "those other companies".
In fact, they officially abandoned the "Don't be evil" motto to the less aspirational "do the right thing."
Sure, we could hypothesize that the legal, risk and other compliance experts advised Google to abandon this slogan due to risk aversion. But the problem with that theory is that Google has been raking up the fines, not in the millions but in the billions. According to The Verge, "Google’s total EU antitrust bill now stands at €8.2 billion ($9.3 billion)". Not sure how that fits in with "doing the right thing". Perhaps it has more to do with "get rich or die trying". It's no wonder politicians think they can get votes by promising to break up Google and the other tech giants.
But the fines are just the tip of the iceberg. Google was one of Obama's top campaign contributors in the 2012 election. As noted in this article by the Intercept, the coziness between Google and the Whitehouse went beyond just the election. They visited the Whitehouse 128 times over Obama's tenure. More troubling:
"Most notably, Google has faced questions for years about exercising its market power to squash rivals, infringing on its users’ privacy rights, favoring its own business affiliates in search results, and using patent law to create barriers to competition. Even Republican senators like Orrin Hatch have called out Google for its practices.
In 2012, staff at the Federal Trade Commission recommended filing antitrust charges after determining that Google was engaging in anti-competitive tactics and abusing its monopoly. A staff report that was later leaked said Google’s conduct “has resulted — and will result — in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets.”
The Wall Street Journal noted that Google’s White House visits increased right around that time. And in 2013, the presidentially appointed commissioners of the FTC overrode their staff, voting unanimously not to file any charges.
Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said the administration “has been a huge help” to Google both by protecting it from attempts to limit its market power and by blocking privacy legislation. “Google has been able to thwart regulatory scrutiny in terms of anti-competitive practices, and has played a key role in ensuring that the United States doesn’t protect at all the privacy of its citizens and its consumers,” Chester said."
So now they are using their capital to subvert laws and investigations to maintain their dominance.
Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor, has a theory.
In The Master Switch, he calls this type of thing the Kronos Effect. The idea is that yesterday's scrappy start-up - who defeated the evil ogre's of their day - only to becomes today's evil ogre. For example, he explains how Adolph Zukor and the other avant-garde filmmakers of his day fought the tyrannical Motion Picture Patents Company, which required you to pay royalties for just using a camera. Who did they end up becoming? The major studios of today - who sue people for copyright infringement of their content. Similarly, we can see Google, who was able to defeat Yahoo, Microsoft and others, has become arguably the Microsoft of our times.
But I think Douglas Rushkoff, ironically in Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity, has a better theory.
What happened? Why did Google take a taxi ride to the dark side?
Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor, has a theory.
In The Master Switch, he calls this type of thing the Kronos Effect. The idea is that yesterday's scrappy start-up - who defeated the evil ogre's of their day - only to becomes today's evil ogre. For example, he explains how Adolph Zukor and the other avant-garde filmmakers of his day fought the tyrannical Motion Picture Patents Company, which required you to pay royalties for just using a camera. Who did they end up becoming? The major studios of today - who sue people for copyright infringement of their content. Similarly, we can see Google, who was able to defeat Yahoo, Microsoft and others, has become arguably the Microsoft of our times.
But I think Douglas Rushkoff, ironically in Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus: How Growth Became the Enemy of Prosperity, has a better theory.
When start-ups that emerge from the "operating system of Capitalism" the end-up being defined by that system's code or DNA: growth, profits, market share and shareholder value - these are the only things matter. Capitalism doesn't pay attention to humanitarian values, moral values or spiritual values because, well, they don't add to the GDP. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters in a Capitalist society.
I would never push anyone to adopt the motto "get rich or die trying".
But as we can see, Google or otherwise, companies end up with this as their mantra when they want to get to the top.
Author: Malik Datardina, CPA, CA, CISA. Malik works at Auvenir as a GRC Strategist that is working to transform the engagement experience for accounting firms and their clients. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent UWCISA, UW, Auvenir (or its affiliates), CPA Canada or anyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)