DORAL, FLORIDA, UNITED STATES, May 20, 2023 /EINPresswire.com/ -- UTMStack, a leading innovator in cybersecurity solutions, has announced a significant breakthrough in the field of cybersecurity - an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system that performs the job of a security analyst, promising to transform cybersecurity practices forever.

In an era marked by an explosion of cyber threats and the requirement for 24/7 monitoring, cybersecurity personnel often find themselves overwhelmed by a deluge of alerts. Recognizing the need for a solution to mitigate alert fatigue and empower security analysts to focus on value-added tasks, UTMStack has developed a revolutionary AI technology. This AI system is context-aware, capable of learning from previous alerts and company activities, enhancing its ability to discern false positives and detect genuine incidents over time.

Leveraging a blend of advanced Machine Learning, Threat Intelligence, Correlation Rules, and cutting-edge GPT 3.5 Turbo, UTMStack's AI not only responds to real-time data but also correlates this with threat intelligence to identify indicators of compromise swiftly. This capability positions UTMStack at the forefront of cybersecurity development, marking a significant stride in the incorporation of AI into real-time threat detection and response.

"This is a major milestone for us at UTMStack and the broader cybersecurity community," said Rick Valdes. "Our AI system is poised to change the landscape of cybersecurity operations by effectively managing routine tasks and allowing security personnel to concentrate on strategic initiatives. We're excited about the potential this holds for organizations looking to streamline their cybersecurity processes and enhance their overall security posture."

By introducing AI into the heart of cybersecurity operations, UTMStack reaffirms its commitment to continually innovate and equip organizations with advanced, cost-effective, and efficient security solutions. The launch of this AI system marks a new era in cybersecurity, promising not only a significant reduction in alert fatigue for security personnel but also a substantial elevation in threat detection and response capabilities.

About UTMStack: UTMStack is a leading provider of comprehensive, integrated cybersecurity solutions. Our mission is to deliver advanced security tools and platforms that help organizations effectively manage cyber threats, achieve compliance, and create a secure digital environment.

Raul Gomez UTMStackraul.gomez@utmstack.com

Visit link:
UTMStack Unveils Free Ground-breaking Artificial Intelligence to Revolutionize Cybersecurity Operations - EIN News

Artificial intelligence is arriving in the produced water management sector.

Infinity Water Solutions and Quantum Reservoir Impact have announced a strategic partnership to develop, deploy and advance a water intelligence platform called SpeedWise Water, an artificial intelligence and machine-learning software designed to standardize, categorize and appraise water, most notably the produced and treated produced water coming from the energy sector.

Data is only as good as the tools you have to make sense of that data, said Michael Dyson, Infinitys chief executive officer. "We can build a tool that takes the data and makes sense of it.

Nansen G. Saleri, chairman and chief executive officer of QRI, stated in an announcement of the partnership, Infinity and QRI are a powerful combination. The coupling of our complementary skill sets, intel, technology and teams have resulted in a truly impressive platform. Together we can deliver far more positive outcomes towardsustainability and clean energy than either company individually. The fact that we can help the value appreciation of wastewater through AI and superior engineering makes it even more exciting.

Without quality data, We dont know how valuable that water is for fracturing, agriculture use or if its toxic and needs to be disposed of in the subsurface, said Zac Hildenbrand, who will be joining Infinity June 1 as chief scientific officer. He currently is a research professor at the University of Texas at El Pasos Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.

SpeedWise will have remote sensors capturing information from production sites and relaying that information into its platform, he said. As more data points are collected, it becomes even more powerful, he added.

Demonstrating a beta version of SpeedWise, Hildenbrand showed how it can take a cluster of wells the particular wells being shown were in New Mexico and, through AI, predict how much water the wells would produce, how much of that water would be needed for fracturing projects and the constituents found in that water.

We can commoditize that water, generate a marketplace, he said.

That should bring down costs for both the companies that gather and dispose of water and those sourcing water, said Dyson.

This goes beyond ESG Environment, Social and Governance but to sustainability, he continued.

The platform will also offer legislators and regulators and academicians the tools they need to advance beneficial reuse of produced water, Dyson said.

Were still on the cusp of beneficial reuse, said Hildenbrand. We dont have permitting because they dont have standards. I hope we can hand our data to regulators and water consortiums and say, Heres the standards so they can put regulations in place.

He added that he has seen Permian Basin operators treat produced water to a level less toxic than the standards for drinking water in El Paso.

Dyson said the platform will democratize information so any stakeholder at any level will know the value of the produced water, enhancing purchasing power. He cited the example of cotton farmers seeking water to irrigate their crops. Water treatment companies can use the information to optimize their processes.

Solutions to the vast amount of produced water exist to turn what is considered a waste product, a liability, into an asset.

SpeedWise is a critical component that furthers things that are impossible now, Dyson said. This pulls together technologies and makes them work smoothly. The status quo is not sustainable.

Link:
Infinity Water Solutions, Quantum Reservoir Impact announce platform - Midland Reporter-Telegram

Open this photo in gallery:

A company's use of AI needs to align with its vision, mission and values and be based on a set of transparent and ethical principles and policies.DADO RUVIC/Reuters

Ian Robertson is the chief executive officer of strategic shareholder advisory and governance firm Kingsdale Advisors Inc.

Artificial Intelligence is bound to be the central engine of a fourth industrial revolution and is on the verge of playing a crucial role in the management and oversight of companies.

Some may be surprised to learn the use of artificial governance intelligence is already actively applied in boardrooms and corporate decision-making processes, such as due diligence of mergers and acquisitions, profiling investors, auditing annual reports, validating new business opportunities, analyzing and optimizing procurement, sales, marketing, and other corporate matters.

Most businesses are already utilizing some form of AI, algorithms and various platforms, such as ChatGPT. International organizations, governments, businesses, scientific and legal communities are racing to establish new regulations, laws, policies, ethical codes and privacy requirements as AI continues to evolve at a rapid pace while current legal and regulatory frameworks are lagging and becoming obsolete.

Against this backdrop it is important shareholders and boards start considering these issues, too, especially as it relates to augmenting or supplanting the role of corporate directors. Is your company ready for the rise of the robo-director?

In 2014, Hong Kong-based venture capital group Deep Knowledge Ventures appointed an algorithm named VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to its board of directors. VITAL was given the same right as human directors of the corporation to vote on whether the firm should invest in a specific company or not. Since then, VITAL has been widely acknowledged as the worlds first robo-director and other companies, such as software provider Tietoevry and Salesforce, have followed suit in employing AI in the boardroom.

The World Economic Forum has reported that by 2026, corporate governance will have undergone a robotization process on a massive scale. Momentum in computational power, breakthroughs in AI technology and advanced digitalization will inevitably lead to more established support for corporate directors using AI in their roles, if not their full replacement by autonomous systems. The result being that human directors sharing their decision-making powers with robo-directors will have become the new normal.

As the legal and regulatory landscape races to keep pace, companies need to forecast their compliance obligations that govern AI systems and boards will need to adjust to new corporate laws. In Canada, several coming federal and provincial privacy law reforms will affect the use of AI in business operations. The proposed federal Bill C- 27, if passed, would implement Canadas first artificial intelligence legislation, the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), which could come into effect in 2025. Current corporate law is not adapted to artificial governance intelligence and will have to cope with new and complex legal questions once the use of AI as a support tool or replacement of human directors increases.

There are some key questions directors and shareholders alike should be considering: How do current legal strategies apply to robo-directors? How and who will be responsible for the execution of fiduciary duties? Financial compensation and pay-for-performance will be of no use to robo-directors, so who is being compensated and being held accountable behind the scenes for programming and controlling the robo-director? What are the needs and limitations of a robo-director and what roles of a traditional director should be ring-fenced from them?

The use of AI provides opportunities and potential threats, both requiring strong risk and governance frameworks. The board is accountable legally and ethically for the use of AI within the company and its impact on employees, customers and shareholders, including third-party products which may embed AI technologies.

The use of AI needs to align with the companys vision, mission and values; be based on a set of safe, transparent and ethical principles and policies; and be rigorously monitored to ensure compliance with data privacy rules. Codes of conduct and ethics need to be updated to include an AI governance framework and ensure no bias in data-setting and decision-making. Companies should consider appointing an executive who will be responsible for AI governance and provide strategic insights to the board.

Read the original:
Opinion: Soon, artificial intelligence will be running companies rise ... - The Globe and Mail

When we talk about artificial intelligence, we rely on metaphor, as we always do when dealing with something new and unfamiliar. Metaphors are, by their nature, imperfect, but we still need to choose them carefully, because bad ones can lead us astray. For example, its become very common to compare powerful A.I.s to genies in fairy tales. The metaphor is meant to highlight the difficulty of making powerful entities obey your commands; the computer scientist Stuart Russell has cited the parable of King Midas, who demanded that everything he touched turn into gold, to illustrate the dangers of an A.I. doing what you tell it to do instead of what you want it to do. There are multiple problems with this metaphor, but one of them is that it derives the wrong lessons from the tale to which it refers. The point of the Midas parable is that greed will destroy you, and that the pursuit of wealth will cost you everything that is truly important. If your reading of the parable is that, when you are granted a wish by the gods, you should phrase your wish very, very carefully, then you have missed the point.

So, I would like to propose another metaphor for the risks of artificial intelligence. I suggest that we think about A.I. as a management-consulting firm, along the lines of McKinsey & Company. Firms like McKinsey are hired for a wide variety of reasons, and A.I. systems are used for many reasons, too. But the similarities between McKinseya consulting firm that works with ninety per cent of the Fortune 100and A.I. are also clear. Social-media companies use machine learning to keep users glued to their feeds. In a similar way, Purdue Pharma used McKinsey to figure out how to turbocharge sales of OxyContin during the opioid epidemic. Just as A.I. promises to offer managers a cheap replacement for human workers, so McKinsey and similar firms helped normalize the practice of mass layoffs as a way of increasing stock prices and executive compensation, contributing to the destruction of the middle class in America.

A former McKinsey employee has described the company as capitals willing executioners: if you want something done but dont want to get your hands dirty, McKinsey will do it for you. That escape from accountability is one of the most valuable services that management consultancies provide. Bosses have certain goals, but dont want to be blamed for doing whats necessary to achieve those goals; by hiring consultants, management can say that they were just following independent, expert advice. Even in its current rudimentary form, A.I. has become a way for a company to evade responsibility by saying that its just doing what the algorithm says, even though it was the company that commissioned the algorithm in the first place.

The question we should be asking is: as A.I. becomes more powerful and flexible, is there any way to keep it from being another version of McKinsey? The question is worth considering across different meanings of the term A.I. If you think of A.I. as a broad set of technologies being marketed to companies to help them cut their costs, the question becomes: how do we keep those technologies from working as capitals willing executioners? Alternatively, if you imagine A.I. as a semi-autonomous software program that solves problems that humans ask it to solve, the question is then: how do we prevent that software from assisting corporations in ways that make peoples lives worse? Suppose youve built a semi-autonomous A.I. thats entirely obedient to humansone that repeatedly checks to make sure it hasnt misinterpreted the instructions it has received. This is the dream of many A.I. researchers. Yet such software could easily still cause as much harm as McKinsey has.

Note that you cannot simply say that you will build A.I. that only offers pro-social solutions to the problems you ask it to solve. Thats the equivalent of saying that you can defuse the threat of McKinsey by starting a consulting firm that only offers such solutions. The reality is that Fortune 100 companies will hire McKinsey instead of your pro-social firm, because McKinseys solutions will increase shareholder value more than your firms solutions will. It will always be possible to build A.I. that pursues shareholder value above all else, and most companies will prefer to use that A.I. instead of one constrained by your principles.

Is there a way for A.I. to do something other than sharpen the knife blade of capitalism? Just to be clear, when I refer to capitalism, Im not talking about the exchange of goods or services for prices determined by a market, which is a property of many economic systems. When I refer to capitalism, Im talking about a specific relationship between capital and labor, in which private individuals who have money are able to profit off the effort of others. So, in the context of this discussion, whenever I criticize capitalism, Im not criticizing the idea of selling things; Im criticizing the idea that people who have lots of money get to wield power over people who actually work. And, more specifically, Im criticizing the ever-growing concentration of wealth among an ever-smaller number of people, which may or may not be an intrinsic property of capitalism but which absolutely characterizes capitalism as it is practiced today.

As it is currently deployed, A.I. often amounts to an effort to analyze a task that human beings perform and figure out a way to replace the human being. Coincidentally, this is exactly the type of problem that management wants solved. As a result, A.I. assists capital at the expense of labor. There isnt really anything like a labor-consulting firm that furthers the interests of workers. Is it possible for A.I. to take on that role? Can A.I. do anything to assist workers instead of management?

Some might say that its not the job of A.I. to oppose capitalism. That may be true, but its not the job of A.I. to strengthen capitalism, either. Yet that is what it currently does. If we cannot come up with ways for A.I. to reduce the concentration of wealth, then Id say its hard to argue that A.I. is a neutral technology, let alone a beneficial one.

Many people think that A.I. will create more unemployment, and bring up universal basic income, or U.B.I., as a solution to that problem. In general, I like the idea of universal basic income; however, over time, Ive become skeptical about the way that people who work in A.I. suggest U.B.I. as a response to A.I.-driven unemployment. It would be different if we already had universal basic income, but we dont, so expressing support for it seems like a way for the people developing A.I. to pass the buck to the government. In effect, they are intensifying the problems that capitalism creates with the expectation that, when those problems become bad enough, the government will have no choice but to step in. As a strategy for making the world a better place, this seems dubious.

You may remember that, in the run-up to the 2016 election, the actress Susan Sarandonwho was a fervent supporter of Bernie Sanderssaid that voting for Donald Trump would be better than voting for Hillary Clinton because it would bring about the revolution more quickly. I dont know how deeply Sarandon had thought this through, but the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj iek said the same thing, and Im pretty sure he had given a lot of thought to the matter. He argued that Trumps election would be such a shock to the system that it would bring about change.

What iek advocated for is an example of an idea in political philosophy known as accelerationism. There are a lot of different versions of accelerationism, but the common thread uniting left-wing accelerationists is the notion that the only way to make things better is to make things worse. Accelerationism says that its futile to try to oppose or reform capitalism; instead, we have to exacerbate capitalisms worst tendencies until the entire system breaks down. The only way to move beyond capitalism is to stomp on the gas pedal of neoliberalism until the engine explodes.

I suppose this is one way to bring about a better world, but, if its the approach that the A.I. industry is adopting, I want to make sure everyone is clear about what theyre working toward. By building A.I. to do jobs previously performed by people, A.I. researchers are increasing the concentration of wealth to such extreme levels that the only way to avoid societal collapse is for the government to step in. Intentionally or not, this is very similar to voting for Trump with the goal of bringing about a better world. And the rise of Trump illustrates the risks of pursuing accelerationism as a strategy: things can get very bad, and stay very bad for a long time, before they get better. In fact, you have no idea of how long it will take for things to get better; all you can be sure of is that there will be significant pain and suffering in the short and medium term.

Im not very convinced by claims that A.I. poses a danger to humanity because it might develop goals of its own and prevent us from turning it off. However, I do think that A.I. is dangerous inasmuch as it increases the power of capitalism. The doomsday scenario is not a manufacturing A.I. transforming the entire planet into paper clips, as one famous thought experiment has imagined. Its A.I.-supercharged corporations destroying the environment and the working class in their pursuit of shareholder value. Capitalism is the machine that will do whatever it takes to prevent us from turning it off, and the most successful weapon in its arsenal has been its campaign to prevent us from considering any alternatives.

People who criticize new technologies are sometimes called Luddites, but its helpful to clarify what the Luddites actually wanted. The main thing they were protesting was the fact that their wages were falling at the same time that factory owners profits were increasing, along with food prices. They were also protesting unsafe working conditions, the use of child labor, and the sale of shoddy goods that discredited the entire textile industry. The Luddites did not indiscriminately destroy machines; if a machines owner paid his workers well, they left it alone. The Luddites were not anti-technology; what they wanted was economic justice. They destroyed machinery as a way to get factory owners attention. The fact that the word Luddite is now used as an insult, a way of calling someone irrational and ignorant, is a result of a smear campaign by the forces of capital.

Whenever anyone accuses anyone else of being a Luddite, its worth asking, is the person being accused actually against technology? Or are they in favor of economic justice? And is the person making the accusation actually in favor of improving peoples lives? Or are they just trying to increase the private accumulation of capital?

Today, we find ourselves in a situation in which technology has become conflated with capitalism, which has in turn become conflated with the very notion of progress. If you try to criticize capitalism, you are accused of opposing both technology and progress. But what does progress even mean, if it doesnt include better lives for people who work? What is the point of greater efficiency, if the money being saved isnt going anywhere except into shareholders bank accounts? We should all strive to be Luddites, because we should all be more concerned with economic justice than with increasing the private accumulation of capital. We need to be able to criticize harmful uses of technologyand those include uses that benefit shareholders over workerswithout being described as opponents of technology.

See the article here:
Will A.I. Become the New McKinsey? - The New Yorker