Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Do You Trust This Computer? [video]

doyoutrustthiscomputer.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Do You Trust This Computer? [video]

#31

Post by titzer »

transpute wrote: post #27
jancsika wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The notion that software engineers are not responsible for things that go wrong will be put to rest for good, and we will have to work out how to develop and maintain code that will go on working dependably for decades in environments that change and evolve." That sounds like a really hard problem to solve. Not only would you need to have an audit trail for the history of changes to the code, you'd also have to fi…

The Anderson article mentions research into extended maintenance practices: "As we build more complex artifacts, which last longer and are more safety critical, the long-term maintenance cost may become the limiting factor. Two things follow. First, software sustainability will be a big research challenge for computer scientists. Second, it will also be a major business opportunity for firms who can cut the cost. On…

Thanks for those links. Even with those recommendations, I think we honestly have no idea how to maintain software systems for 20+ years. Shame, because almost every other kind of industrial system we produced up until about 30 years ago _did_ in fact have the ability to be maintained for decades. Look at the B52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress). Still going strong 60+ years after its first flight. Designed to last. Individual ones were built to last. Sure, it's seen upgrades over the years, but the core was just so well thought out and so _simple_.

We might never be able to build systems like that again. Simple is key, and we just can't help ourselves.

Re: Do You Trust This Computer? [video]

#32

Post by detaro »

transpute wrote: post #27
jancsika wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The notion that software engineers are not responsible for things that go wrong will be put to rest for good, and we will have to work out how to develop and maintain code that will go on working dependably for decades in environments that change and evolve." That sounds like a really hard problem to solve. Not only would you need to have an audit trail for the history of changes to the code, you'd also have to fi…

The Anderson article mentions research into extended maintenance practices: "As we build more complex artifacts, which last longer and are more safety critical, the long-term maintenance cost may become the limiting factor. Two things follow. First, software sustainability will be a big research challenge for computer scientists. Second, it will also be a major business opportunity for firms who can cut the cost. On…

What mainframe systems do sounds pretty close the quote. They can still run decades-old software, even if the hardware platform underneath now looks completely different, since they can emulate everything from the old system, or have newer interpreters for the same old languages.

Re: Do You Trust This Computer? [video]

#33

Post by jochung »

syntaxgoonoo wrote: post #26
jsharf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly how I felt. The whole thing is like a stream of consciousness experience without any central story or narration. I couldn't take it. It's like one big infomercial or something

I agree. 10 min was all I could bare. It's just a big mix of sound bites.

I find it eery that a documentary that isn't telling people what to feel or think or do is criticized for being incomprehensible and boring.

Maybe we're already far more doomed than people realize.

Re: Do You Trust This Computer? [video]

#34

Post by transpute »

terminado wrote: post #25
goalieca wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> software engineers I've had the idea for a while that most of us practice software development rather than software engineering. I have a degree in computer engineering but i consider myself software developer now rather than a software engineer. The reason, I don't practice engineering in the legal and professional sense. In engineering school we learn about engineering as a formal process and professional respons…

There's no legal framework, to distinguish devices that matter from devices that don't. There's no clear demarcation between devising a convenient contraption, versus implementing an inadvisable hack that leads to a hazardous outcome, especially within the scope of web based systems, since no portion of the internet is to be regarded as reliable life-saving infrastructure. I think the mistake is to trust packet-switc…

Work is underway to support Time-Sensitive Networking in modern operating systems: https://schd.ws/hosted_files/elciotna18/b6/ELC-2018-USA-TSNo...

Re: Do You Trust This Computer? [video]

#35

Post by transpute »

terminado wrote: post #15
transpute wrote: post #8

Regulation comes up later in the film. Ross Anderson, professor at Cambridge University recently wrote, https://m.cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/3/225467-making-securi... "Once software becomes pervasive in devices that surround us, that are online, and that can kill us, the software industry will have to come of age. As security becomes ever more about safety rather than just privacy, we will have sharper policy debate…

The Ivory Tower has a way of phrasing concepts such that they are framed by finality and totality. The mentalility comes with having made it through the admissions process, and passing your final exams with a good grade point average, conferring some lofty degree of distinguishment into one's possession. So, to look at the words: The notion that software engineers are not responsible for things that go wrong will be…

An effort was started by Mudge to use static analysis and fuzzing to assess a range of software, https://34c3.cyber-itl.org & https://theintercept.com/2016/07/29/a-famed-hacker-is-gradin...

"... first-of-its-kind method for testing and scoring the security of software — a method inspired partly by Underwriters Laboratories, that century-old entity responsible for the familiar circled UL seal that tells you your toaster and hair dryer have been tested for safety and won’t burst into flames. Called the Cyber Independent Testing Lab, the Zatkos’ operation won’t tell you if your software is literally incendiary, but it will give you a way to comparison-shop browsers, applications, and antivirus products according to how hardened they are against attack. It may also push software makers to improve their code to avoid a low score and remain competitive."

Re: Do You Trust This Computer? [video]

#36

Post by jijojv »

syntaxgoonoo wrote: post #26
jsharf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly how I felt. The whole thing is like a stream of consciousness experience without any central story or narration. I couldn't take it. It's like one big infomercial or something

I agree. 10 min was all I could bare. It's just a big mix of sound bites.

Exactly - really wanted to like and see it since Musk was promoting it.

Re: Do You Trust This Computer? [video]

#37

Post by carlosdp »

jochung wrote: post #33
syntaxgoonoo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. 10 min was all I could bare. It's just a big mix of sound bites.

I find it eery that a documentary that isn't telling people what to feel or think or do is criticized for being incomprehensible and boring. Maybe we're already far more doomed than people realize.

A narrator doesn't tell you "what to feel or think", they piece together what you're looking at and go deeper into concepts, whereas this quote after quote stream doesn't go very deep into anything.

In fact, I'd say it is currently telling you what to feel and nothing more, because most of the quotes in the first 10 minutes are derivations of "technology is scary, you should be scared".

Re: Do You Trust This Computer? [video]

#40

Post by ollin »

gooseus wrote: post #28
dredmorbius wrote: post #2

Very strongly recommended. The interviewed subjects are largely experts in AI, and many are concerned. The film is likely a bit long to trigger much by way of discussion here, though that's not always bad. Word is that free play / download is this weekend only. Grab a copy via yt-download if you can't watch immediately.

That's weird, because I just got to the part in Pinker's Enlightenment Now where he says the large majority of experts in both artificial and human intelligence are not concerned. Who is misrepresenting the expert consensus? Or are they both misrepresenting the fact that there is a consensus?

"""Things AI researchers agree on:

- that documentary was pretty unhelpful

- Terminator images are usually inappropriate

- AlphaGo Zero (if not other Alpha•s) was pretty cool"""

(https://twitter.com/Miles_Brundage/status/983063456424308736)

I don't have any survey results to point to, but my impression from following AI researchers from industry/academia is:

* Modern methods are many leaps of understanding behind anything resembling AGI, so any concern about research groups developing a sentient computer program behind close doors with no warning is probably misplaced.

* AI/ML causing large-scale unemployment will be a serious issue eventually, but it's difficult to make a strong case that's it's happening right now.

* The ability to monitor and manipulate individuals using ML/AI is dangerous, doesn't depend on particularly advanced technology, and is already being used by corporations and governments right now. It's a lot easier to get the public worried about terminator-style robots than about (what appear to be) simple advances in advertising or law enforcement.

* There's a strong incentive for those selling "AI technology" to oversell its ability to generalize/improve automatically. To quote Elon (of all people), "It's a mistake to think that technology automatically improves. It does not automatically improve. It only improves if a lot of people work hard to make it better."–this applies to "deep neural networks" as much as anything else.

Post reply on HN