|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Security quotes of the week

My point is that "worrying about AI" is a zero-sum game. When we train our fire on the stuff that isn't important to the AI stock swindlers' business-plans (like creating AI slop), we should remember that the AI companies could halt all of that activity and not lose a dime in revenue. By contrast, when we focus on AI applications that do the most direct harm – policing, health, security, customer service – we also focus on the AI applications that make the most money and drive the most investment.

AI hasn't attracted hundreds of billions in investment capital because investors love AI slop. All the money pouring into the system – from investors, from customers, from easily gulled big-city mayors – is chasing things that AI is objectively very bad at and those things also cause much more harm than AI slop. If you want to be a good AI critic, you should devote the majority of your focus to these applications. Sure, they're not as visually arresting, but discrediting them is financially arresting, and that's what really matters.

— Cory Doctorow

When I create a virtual machine server in the Amazon cloud, I am prompted for an RSA public key that will be used to control access to the machine. Typically, I create the public and private keypair on my laptop and upload the public key to Amazon, which bakes my public key into the server's administrator account. My laptop and that remove server are thus entangled, in that the only way to log into the server is using the key on my laptop. And because that administrator account can do nearly anything to that server—e.g. read its sensitive data or hack its web pages install malware on people who visit its website—the private key on my laptop represents a security risk for that server.

Here's why it's impossible to evaluate a server and know if it is secure: as long that private key exists on my laptop, that server has a vulnerability. But if I delete that private key, the vulnerability goes away. By deleting the data, I have removed a security risk from the server and its security has increased. This is true entanglement! And it is spooky: not a single bit has changed on the server, yet it is more secure.

— Simson Garfinkel

to post comments

Security people are so weird…

Posted Oct 31, 2024 6:12 UTC (Thu) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359) [Link] (10 responses)

As a nōn-English-native speaker, Cory Doctorow’s excerpt is unintellegible to me.

And the second quote… well, congratulations, you just removed the only method to do anything *meaningful* with the server. This is like making Windows NT secure (unplug the network cable).

Sheesh!

Security people are so weird…

Posted Oct 31, 2024 7:00 UTC (Thu) by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118) [Link] (5 responses)

> The main idea here is that worrying about "silly" AI uses, like making low-quality content, is less important than focusing on serious, harmful uses of AI, like in policing, healthcare, security, and customer service. These areas are where AI companies make the most money, attracting huge investments. The writer argues that most investment in AI is not for fun or harmless uses but for high-stakes applications that AI is actually not very good at and which can cause harm. Therefore, to be an effective critic of AI, people should pay attention to these serious uses, even if they’re less eye-catching, because challenging them impacts companies financially.

I've asked one of the LLMs to summarize the excerpt for a non-native speaker to understand. Did it succeed?

Security people are so weird…

Posted Oct 31, 2024 11:50 UTC (Thu) by excors (subscriber, #95769) [Link] (3 responses)

> Did it succeed?

Not entirely, because it falsely implies "silly" is a direct quote, and the original excerpt doesn't imply the "AI slop" is silly at all. The majority of the article's focus is on that low-quality generated content, as something that "still has cultural significance and is worth considering" and that Facebook scammers use to exploit Thatcher's atomisation of society etc, so the article is taking it quite seriously.

Security people are so weird…

Posted Nov 11, 2024 13:00 UTC (Mon) by lbt (subscriber, #29672) [Link] (2 responses)

Interestingly I (an 'experienced' native British english writer) often use quotes to suggest that I'm paraphrasing or generalising a concept; that maybe it shouldn't be taken literally. In the previous sentence I'm using 'experienced' to refer to my age in a roundabout way; in this one I'm quoting it directly.

I read ' "silly" ' to mean : not literally silly but, you know, not exactly mission critical.

Security people are so weird…

Posted Nov 11, 2024 13:29 UTC (Mon) by excors (subscriber, #95769) [Link] (1 responses)

I think that's a form of scare quotes, which can be valid, but the context is important. In your example there's no indication of any source that "experienced" might be a direct quote from, so it's clear that it probably means "some hypothetical people could say I'm experienced, though that's not exactly what I mean so I'm going to distance myself from it with punctuation". But in the context of summarising an article, there is a very obvious source for direct quotes (i.e. the article itself), so I think a reasonable reader would interpret the quotation marks as almost certainly being a direct quote. Since that interpretation is incorrect, the so-called "writer" should have avoided using such misleading punctuation here. And being clear and unambiguous is even more important when it's explicitly "for a non-native speaker to understand".

Security people are so weird…

Posted Nov 11, 2024 15:38 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Hmm ... I think you're missing that the post EXPLICTLY said that the quote was generated by an AI. (Okay, it took me a while to work out exactly what the post was saying, but I do think it is pretty clear and unambiguous - once you step back and think about it!)

As a native English speaker, " "silly" like ..." (which is what the AI generated) seems very clearly to me to be calling "low-quality content" "silly".

> And being clear and unambiguous is even more important when it's explicitly "for a non-native speaker to understand".

You mean like trying to write American clearly for an English speaker? You're on to a losing battle there! "The English and Americans are two nations divided by a common language".

Cheers,
Wol

Security people are so weird…

Posted Oct 31, 2024 15:51 UTC (Thu) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359) [Link]

That is most unhelpful. I refuse to poison my mind with LLM sludge.

Security people are so weird…

Posted Oct 31, 2024 14:26 UTC (Thu) by madscientist (subscriber, #16861) [Link]

The second quote is not trying to provide recommendations on how to make systems more secure so this complaint isn't n point. If you read the article they are discussing the concept of "spooky data": information systems that are entangled in non-direct and non-physical ways.

Security people are so weird…

Posted Oct 31, 2024 18:40 UTC (Thu) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link] (2 responses)

Here's my entirely human-written summary:

* Lots of people are worried about what Doctorow calls "AI slop." Clicking through to his post, it appears that he is talking about AI-generated social media posts, especially if they contain disinformation, clickbait, etc.
* Doctorow argues that AI slop is not the most important use of AI to be worried about, because it isn't making the AI companies very much money, nor is it the reason that venture capital is pouring money into AI.
* Instead, Doctorow's position is that AI mostly makes money (and causes significantly greater overall harm) by replacing human decisions in fields such as "policing, health, security, [and] customer service." His full post highlights several specific examples of these harms.
* So Doctorow argues that people critical of AI should be more focused on those use cases, rather than on "AI slop."
* But his full post then proceeds to talk about "slop" in considerable detail, and acknowledges that it too causes significant harm. He then goes on to tie it into social and political commentary about the broader state of the world (which I am not going to attempt to summarize here, but if you've read Doctorow before, it should all sound pretty familiar).

Security people are so weird…

Posted Oct 31, 2024 22:42 UTC (Thu) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] (1 responses)

And this, compared to the LLM-generated summary above, is a great example of why we still need human brains in the loop. Excellent synopsis.

Security people are so weird…

Posted Oct 31, 2024 23:10 UTC (Thu) by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359) [Link]

Indeed, thank you.

(And yes, I have… tried to read Doctorow before. I get the idea.)


Copyright © 2024, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds