Thread View: comp.human-factors
4 messages
4 total messages
Started by Arthur T. Murray
Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:00
Security and HCI aspects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Author: Arthur T. Murray
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:00
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:00
53 lines
3892 bytes
3892 bytes
"To observe a phenomenon is to change the phenomenon" normally applies only at the microphysical level of quantum mechanics, but das heisenbergsche Unbestimmtheitsprinzip is worth keeping in mind in the security and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) aspects of AI. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix/vinge/vinge-sing.html Vinge in his prophetic oracle on "Technological Singularity" describes various scenarios of how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is coming. Readers of the newsgroup comp.security.misc are well advised to consider far in advance of AI the computer security aspects of AI. It will be too late to build in security controls when the AI is on an equal IQ with humans and is about to wrest control from you. Since AI systems are being designed, coded and set free right now, don't say we didn't warn you by posting messages such as this one. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/7256/mind-fpc.html Mind.Forth is going through some major changes in preparation for a new release. The "spy" function that allows insufficiently paranoid security agents to observe the spoken and unspoken thoughts of the AI is now old hat. Interactors with the newsgroup comp.human-factors will be pleased to learn of the latest HCI-relevant security-adumbrant AI features now being incorporated into the market dominant public domain AI: during the pause in robot thinking while the AI waits for input, where previously the computer simply looped through thousands of clock cycles and drew a line of dots across the HCI screen, now the ghost of Heisenberg has put the impatient Forthmind to work accomplishing tasks which are not strictly thinking but which support the mechanisms of machine intelligence: the gradual DECAY of activation levels in concepts which almost but not quite entered the stream of consciousness, and (yet to come) the sweeping and scouring of old memories for associations to be brought forward and redeposited before memory is recycled. Saluting it or not, run this idea up your security/HCI flagpole: You the user and perhaps the range safety officer at the test facility for AI-autonomous mobile robots, are interacting with your machine counterpart (get over it -- by snapping out of it) and you know that the cyborg is programmed to stop and listen to you for a few seconds in between each internal thought of its own. With the new (activation-damping) DECAY feature, how long you hesitate in the human-computer interaction determines how much of its mind the AI loses while waiting for you to enter input. Well, it doesn't actually lose its mind, but it forgets a lot of things that would otherwise pile up huge activations and begin to interfere with the "veridicality" or truthfulness of its logic. Here is where the HCI people and the security no-necks need to get over their mutual aversion and come up with a plan to stick it to the man -- userman.html or progman.html -- of how to operate the AI mind when the very act of observing the AI changes the AI.
Re: Security and HCI aspects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Author: Paul Hargreaves
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:00
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 00:00
16 lines
1783 bytes
1783 bytes
>Readers of the newsgroup comp.security.misc are well advised to >consider far in advance of AI the computer security aspects of AI. >It will be too late to build in security controls when the AI is >on an equal IQ with humans and is about to wrest control from you. >Since AI systems are being designed, coded and set free right now, >don't say we didn't warn you by posting messages such as this one. >the AI mind when the very act of observing the AI changes the AI. I thought April fools day was only in April? Oh well. Before anybody can develop an artifical intellegence, they have to figure out how the conciousness works. Since we know so little about it, I'm not planning on worrying. Maybe one day we will be able to build true AI's, but probably not in my life time.
Re: Security and HCI aspects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Author: jmaline
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00
19 lines
1660 bytes
1660 bytes
"...the market dominant public domain AI...". And what market would that be? The market for semi-coherent spam? I see you've pulled out of the ASCII graphics market, though. Pity. OK, one comment on the substance (such as it is) of your post. To call what you describe an effect of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle seems a bit overinflated. It sounds more accurate to say that the inputs are now timestamped, with the timestamp playing into the result. Otherwise, how would the MDPDAI distinguish observation by an entity from an unrelated pause on the part of the entity. Or the entity ignoring it (as I should have done with your posting). Cheers, John Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.
Re: Security and HCI aspects of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Author: Martin Knopman
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 00:00
35 lines
2622 bytes
2622 bytes
Paul Hargreaves wrote in message <7so264$vrj$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>... >Before anybody can develop an artifical intellegence, they have to figure >out how the conciousness works. Not so. I don't even see why you think a consciousness is necessary for intelligence. And, even if I give you that assumption, you have the hidden assumption that our type(s) of consciousness is the only 'legitimate' type. Why couldn't someone just develop their own notion of consciousness? AND, even besides all that, there are far too many machines that Man (to give one example species) has built without knowing how or why they work. >Since we know so little about it, I'm not >planning on worrying. > Good for you. Why would you worry, anyway? The original poster didn't even address a new reason for worry. One doesn't need AI to run into problems with rogue programs trying to screw things up, and to be honest, an AI program would probably pose less threat than "one minded" programs bent on destruction. The worry about evolutionary pressure within systems causing more robust bothersome programs is where to look ... probably. That is where truly "different" types of thinking (as seen in the action/reaction of the program) may grow, and where we would be woefully underarmed. >Maybe one day we will be able to build true AI's, but probably not in my >life time. > It doesn't really matter, since if you don't think it's possible in the near future you would never judge any program to be intelligent ... which is only a label anyway ... right? Martin Knopman
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads