• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Does AI follow earlier technologies’ path? One post calls it a dividing line

    One user contrasts decades of damaging internet malware with what they describe as relatively few significant AI security incidents.

    SK
    MA
    SS
    4 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    One post frames AI discourse around a question: is AI on the same path as earlier technologies, or separate from that computer science history? It quotes a user who points to the Morris worm, Melissa, ILOVEYOU and Code Red to argue that AI has seen relatively few significant security incidents compared with the internet’s history of damaging malware.

    Combined views

    75.8K

    4 Sources, first seen 19d ago

    Combined views

    75.8K

    4 Sources, first seen 19d ago

    796 likes
    19d ago
    first seen 19d ago
    796 likes
    67 comments
    149 saves
    119 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    67 comments
    149 saves
    119 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    4 Sources

    @martin_casadoIn 1988, the Morris worm took out 10% of the Internet including taking out key national security and research assets. In 1992 the Michelangelo virus was expected to cause a digital apocalypse 99' the FBI reported that the Melissa virus compromised more than 300 companies and over one million accounts disrupted 00' and 01' we saw ILOVEYOU and CodeRed causing billions in economic damage. Since the creation of the Internet we had a constant stream of vulnerabilities impacting critical infrastructure, nationally sensitive resources, and causing billions in economic damage. In contrast, It really is remarkable how relatively few security significant events we've seen with AI despite all the effort and money trying to will it into existence. And relative lack of security sophistication from those developing it.
    @sriramkOne dividing axis for all the AI discourse is : is this on the same path as preceding technology or is this somehow not a part of computer science history in the same way.
    @scaling01RT @KishanBagaria: when ai hits security there will be signs
    @stevesiMy friendly reminder, after Microsoft software caused billions in damage due to benign features being chained together (ILOVEYOU) and then a bunch of Windows Server ecomm apps went down over holidays (and more), Microsoft just said: "So now, when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security. Our products should emphasize security right out of the box, and we must constantly refine and improve that security as threats evolve. A good example of this is the changes we made in Outlook to avoid e-mail-borne viruses. If we discover a risk that a feature could compromise someone’s privacy, that problem gets solved first. If there is any way we can better protect important data and minimize downtime, we should focus on this. These principles should apply at every stage of the development cycle of every kind of software we create, from operating systems and desktop applications to global Web services." Full text: "Trustworthy Computing" January 2002. https://archive.is/6T7hl We did this on our own. We did not ask for regulators to tell us. We had the data. We knew the issue was in the software. It was super difficult in the competitive and customer-demanding world we worked but we did it. It is so confusing to me that the AI companies are acting so helpless and in need of oversight to prioritize making the right product. What do they think regulators would know about building their products that they do not know? How much more evidence do we need?

    4 Sources

    @martin_casadoIn 1988, the Morris worm took out 10% of the Internet including taking out key national security and research assets. In 1992 the Michelangelo virus was expected to cause a digital apocalypse 99' the FBI reported that the Melissa virus compromised more than 300 companies and over one million accounts disrupted 00' and 01' we saw ILOVEYOU and CodeRed causing billions in economic damage. Since the creation of the Internet we had a constant stream of vulnerabilities impacting critical infrastructure, nationally sensitive resources, and causing billions in economic damage. In contrast, It really is remarkable how relatively few security significant events we've seen with AI despite all the effort and money trying to will it into existence. And relative lack of security sophistication from those developing it.
    @sriramkOne dividing axis for all the AI discourse is : is this on the same path as preceding technology or is this somehow not a part of computer science history in the same way.
    @scaling01RT @KishanBagaria: when ai hits security there will be signs
    @stevesiMy friendly reminder, after Microsoft software caused billions in damage due to benign features being chained together (ILOVEYOU) and then a bunch of Windows Server ecomm apps went down over holidays (and more), Microsoft just said: "So now, when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose security. Our products should emphasize security right out of the box, and we must constantly refine and improve that security as threats evolve. A good example of this is the changes we made in Outlook to avoid e-mail-borne viruses. If we discover a risk that a feature could compromise someone’s privacy, that problem gets solved first. If there is any way we can better protect important data and minimize downtime, we should focus on this. These principles should apply at every stage of the development cycle of every kind of software we create, from operating systems and desktop applications to global Web services." Full text: "Trustworthy Computing" January 2002. https://archive.is/6T7hl We did this on our own. We did not ask for regulators to tell us. We had the data. We knew the issue was in the software. It was super difficult in the competitive and customer-demanding world we worked but we did it. It is so confusing to me that the AI companies are acting so helpless and in need of oversight to prioritize making the right product. What do they think regulators would know about building their products that they do not know? How much more evidence do we need?