On Jan 27, 2008 5:32 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Software correctness is undecidable -- the halting problem reduces to it.
> Computer security isn't going to be magically solved by AGI. The problem will
> actually get worse, because complex systems are harder to get right.
>
C
Matt Mahoney wrote:
If I hired you as a security analyst to find flaws in a piece of software, and
I didn't tell you what I was going to do with the information, how would you
know?
This is so silly it is actually getting quite amusing... :-)
So, you are positing a situation in which I am an
I pulled in some extra context from earlier messages to
illustrate an interesting event, here.
On Jan 27, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Suppose you
ask the AGI to examine some operating system or server softwar
--- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2008 5:32 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Software correctness is undecidable -- the halting problem reduces to it.
> > Computer security isn't going to be magically solved by AGI. The problem
> will
> > actually get w
On Jan 28, 2008 1:15 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 2008 5:32 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Software correctness is undecidable -- the halting problem reduces to it.
> > > Computer security isn't
On 27/01/2008, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 2008 5:32 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Software correctness is undecidable -- the halting problem reduces to it.
> > > Computer security isn't going to
Richard, thanks for the book tip on Eysenck & Keane. I just ordered from
Amazon.
Cheers.
-Steve
Stephen L. Reed
Artificial Intelligence Researcher
http://texai.org/blog
http://texai.org
3008 Oak Crest Ave.
Austin, Texas, USA 78704
512.791.7860
- Original Message
From: Richard Loosemo
--- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You don't NEED intrusion detection if intrusion cannot be done. If
> your software doesn't read anything from outside, it's not possible to
> attack it. If it reads that data and correctly does nothing with it,
> it's not possible to attack it. If it
On Jan 28, 2008 4:53 AM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You don't NEED intrusion detection if intrusion cannot be done. If
> > your software doesn't read anything from outside, it's not possible to
> > attack it. If it reads that data and
> Google
> already knows more than any human,
This is only true, of course, for specific interpretations of the word
"know" ... and NOT for the standard ones...
>and can retrieve the information faster,
> but it can't launch a singularity.
Because, among other reasons, it is not an intelligence
10 matches
Mail list logo
