The challenge appears to be to create an AI that can answer the most multiple choice questions correctly.

Here's some of the questions from the dataset:

• Which of these is inherited by a person from his or her parents? (A) short hair (B) long arms (C) pierced ears (D) scar on the leg

• Which object occupies the greatest amount of space? (A) a galaxy (B) a black hole (C) a neutron star (D) a solar system

• What is a similarity between sound waves and light waves? (A) Both carry energy. (B) Both travel in vacuums. (C) Both are caused by vibrations. (D) Both are traveling at the same speed.

There's an entry called "Guess All" that scored 25% as you might expect.

They provide a list of 14 million science-related sentences (presumably for training) but there's no requirement to rely solely on them to solve the challenge. The list has been scraped from web search results so looks quite noisy.

4-choose-1 makes 53% a lot more impressive than when I assumed it was true/false. I had, like the other poster, assumed it was a sum of random chance, statistical deviation, and publication bias, but 53% suggests it's doing a little better than that.

I oversimplified in my previous post.

You're usually going to get to a result that's slightly better than random agreement by applying some really-not-all-that-impressive baseline strategy like looking for bag-of-words overlap between a question and a known factoid for which you have a stored answer. This strategy is easy to fool: If you have a factoid like "Dogs that chase cats are dangerous" and a question is asked like "Are cats that chase dogs dangerous?", then it might answer "Yes" because it matches the stored fact: But the answer will actually be "Yes" in more than 50% of all cases. Since dogs tend to chase cats, and cats tend not to chase dogs, the concept of cats chasing dogs is less likely to come up in a question answering context than the concept of dogs chasing cats. There are obviously numerous other ways that this is going to fail, like "Trump believes the world is flat" might be a factoid and the question might be "Is the world flat?".

The result I previously oversimplified should more correctly be stated as follows: Anwers coming from the "artificial intelligence" systems submitted for the conference were analyzed to see if any answer they gave represented a deviation from the baseline that fixed an error in the baseline, versus introduced an error that the baseline wouldn't have made. The submissions were then analyzed to see if there was a pattern whereby more errors would be fixed than introduced. It was found that the statistical pattern was basically that random deviation was introduced into the baseline, and systems that, as a result of such random deviations scored very badly weren't submitted at the conference, thus generating a scores that were consistently more likely to be better than baseline rather than worse-than-baseline, but not in a meaningful way.

To reiterate the source: It can be found on page 43 here:

http://richard.bergmair.eu/pub/thesis.pdf

But that applies to the old RTE conference. So it would be interesting to see if the same holds true here.

This leaderboard tries to prevent that kind of problem:

> The dataset is partitioned into a Challenge Set and an Easy Set, where the former contains only questions answered incorrectly by both a retrieval-based algorithm and a word co-occurrence algorithm. This leaderboard is for the Challenge Set.

Additionally, I don't think they let you try often enough to get a meaningful chance at significantly beating the baseline with just pure randomness.

Are there fundamental limits on the size of black holes, solar systems or galaxies? Or is the question intentionally ambiguous?

The failed attempts make it harder to monitor for other attacks because of the noise in log files, network traffic, etc. and if an attacker IP is blocked early they can't try more effective attacks.

I've set up a second obstacle by allowing access to the device from a certain range of IPs on the router. Cleaned up the log pretty good.

logins can be delayed [0] and TOTP can be used in conjunction with SSH (without google authenticator)

[0] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/105553/how-to-provi...

edit:

quick and dirty notes of my setup [1]

[1] https://pastebin.com/yYzSrM61

Except actual attacks don't show up in logs anyway, so it's still pointless?

The SSH daemon logs when it successfully rejects an access. A successfully rejected access is inconsequential to your security. If you are using secure passwords or pubkey authentication, it will never log a successful login by an attacker. What remains then is exploitation of the SSH server ... but the SSH server doesn't have a code path that logs "I have been exploited".

/etc/sshrc executes before a successful ssh login, you can use that to be notified before an attacker has any access to log files

... so? How does that contradict what I wrote?

>Headless fragments regenerated from familiarized worms displayed slightly shorter feeding latency compared with headless fragments from unfamiliarized worms ... However, the effect was not statistically significant.

So, no. But they do better with the refresher course than other worms if I understand correctly.

>However, the effect was not statistically significant. //

AKA - there's no effect as far as we can tell without further experiment.

Correction: the paper (http://jeb.biologists.org/content/early/2013/06/27/jeb.08780...) is talking about the worms before re-familiarisation. They claim significance for previously "trained" worms being faster at picking up the training post decap+regen.

Keyword searches have become unreliable in Quantum for me; it often goes to the homepage of the search site instead. If this affects you too please file a bug report, thanks!

Why don't you file a bug report?

Do you have the hard drives wallet.dat was stored on at some point?

i was going to ask the same thing, you can search the bytes in hex for 01 03 6B 65 79 41 04

I have tried that, I've been scouring old hard drives for the last few weeks. I also had the file "encrypted" on a True Crypt Container in Dropbox, but I deleted the container in 2012 before the file was lost. (One of the stupid moved I made) Dropbox will/ can not help me recover the file.