>I'm not saying don't audit. I'm pointing out your initial claim that this will find anything unusual.
By "unusual" I mean anything that has intended or unintended negative effects on society, such as what was seen with Cambridge Analytica, or FBs emotional manipulation studies.
>It can find common errors. It can find bad behavior inserted by unskilled people. But against groups that know about current work, you won't find anything
Yep, and without a 3rd party audit, we can't even begin to approximate the degree of hypothetical bad behavior that exists affecting billions of people due to regular developers doing what they're told by their product managers (or of their own volition), let alone a nation state APT.
You keep ignoring both how to audit NNs and how to address behavior not in code. Have you read the paper yet? Explain how audits work in light of the paper.
Without answering those you’re simply wasting time and effort by claiming audits can find things they cannot.
I quite doubt you work in security from your inability to grasp these things. Please demonstrate you’re not lying. Your posting history shows a tendency to be a conspiracy believer, and there’s zero evidence you do anything professionally in security, unlike the history of those I know that do work in security.
By "unusual" I mean anything that has intended or unintended negative effects on society, such as what was seen with Cambridge Analytica, or FBs emotional manipulation studies.
>It can find common errors. It can find bad behavior inserted by unskilled people. But against groups that know about current work, you won't find anything
Yep, and without a 3rd party audit, we can't even begin to approximate the degree of hypothetical bad behavior that exists affecting billions of people due to regular developers doing what they're told by their product managers (or of their own volition), let alone a nation state APT.