Matt Blaze

View original page

@mattblaze@federate.social · Joined ⁨Nov⁩ ⁨2022⁩

Scientist, safecracker, etc. McDevitt Professor of Computer Science and Law at Georgetown. Formerly UPenn, Bell Labs. So-called expert on election security and stuff. twitter.com/mattblaze on the Twitter. Slow photographer. Radio nerd. Blogs occasionally at mattblaze.org/blog . I probably won't see your DM; use something else. He/Him. Uses this wrong.

Replying to @⁨mattblaze@federate.social⁩

@kumarvibe @holdenweb You seem to be suggesting that giving random software (or “AI agents” or whatever it’s called this week) with undefined behavior access to dangerous capabilities is somehow necessary for society to be able to function efficiently.

I think that’s ridiculous and indefensible. The fact that something has “AI” pixie dust doesn’t somehow cancel out basic principles of safety engineering.

Replying to @⁨kumarvibe@mastodon.social⁩

@kumarvibe @holdenweb Huh? Don’t give software with undefined behavior, whether it uses “AI” or not, access to capabilities that you don’t want it to misuse. Ever. Period. That’s the trick. (Actually it’s not a trick, it’s just an obvious safety precaution.)

You either put it in a configuration with access to the Internet (or the life support system or whatever) or you don’t. Software doesn’t “escape” containment. It’s that someone failed to contain it in the first place.

Replying to @⁨kumarvibe@mastodon.social⁩

@kumarvibe Software correctness and safety isn’t easy. Who told you it was?

But the killing problem can be solved. My word processor can’t kill anyone (Although maybe it could raise my blood pressure by deleting files at an inopportune moment).

Perhaps if you aren’t sure what a piece of software might do, you shouldn’t let it control lethal capabilities?