5 ms·

They may have found a way to automate testing software that's more in-depth then say valgrind. Maybe involving machine learning. Most buffer overflow exploits

They may have found a way to automate testing software that's more in-depth then say valgrind. Maybe involving machine learning. Most buffer overflow exploits likely rely on common patterns in source code (if you ignore variable names). Which could be taught to a computer. Actually 90% of buffer overflows result in the length of your read and the place of read coming from highly independent sources.

toomuchtodo 12y ago
I just got a shiver thinking about Google's machine learning ingesting most of GNU/Linux source code from distros, and "learning" how to write software better than a human.
- Phlarp 12y ago
  Machine learning applied to vulnerability research in open source code distributions =/= strong AI.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    Well, maybe not yet. I think its silly to start discounting what level of AI we'll be able to develop with enough computing power and storage. Not to say we'll be able to duplicate biological system levels of computing in silicon, but who knows. Technology is moving pretty damn fast.
    - valarauca1 12y ago
      >but who knows. Technology is moving pretty damn fast. We've been saying this for nearly 70 years. I'm still waiting.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        You can ask your phone for the weather and to change the temperature of your home. You can store your entire music collection on a device the size of a postage stamp (512GB Sandisk MicroSD card). There are cars that can literally drive themselves. There is mini version of the space shuttle that runs completely autonomously in space, and has loitered up there for over a year, waiting to come home when it receives a specially coded signal. IBM has software that is slowly replacing doctors and lawyers. The future is already here.
        DasIch 12y ago
        Most of these things are solved with simple algorithms though. That we are able to solve a lot of these problems is pretty much inevitable as the technology stack grows and we are able to stick stuff together via APIs. These systems may seem smart or intelligent but really they are just a large complex network of systems. There is nothing intelligent about them. AI of this kind is not just the result of a simple step or several. AI will probably be a revolutionary break through that requires an understanding of intelligence and being, we have not made any significant progress in.
        roywiggins 12y ago
        A lot of the modern changes are a difference in size or extent, but not in kind. I mean to say: A small hard drive replacing a massive hard drive is very, very useful. But it's not, by itself, any smarter than the magnetic core storage that filled a room. You could ask your Nokia dumbphone for the weather using a text message 15 years ago. People were wiring their home lighting systems into the internet by the early 2000s. Of course, it was more ad-hoc and expensive then. Now you can go down to Best Buy and buy a home automation kit for a few hundred dollars. The miniaturization and extension of digital technology into every part of our lives and waking moments is extraordinary. But it's not, by itself, much of a guarantee that we'll see strong AI. It's probably necessary but not sufficient.
- valarauca1 12y ago
  Compilers already do this to an extent. But overall I don't think computers will be actively creating things for a while yet. Maybe I just believe to much in humanity, or I'm just to jaded from following tech news for too long.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    I always bring this up on HN, but IBM's Watson can diagnose cancer better than 2nd year med students. It's not sentient, but baby steps!
    - valarauca1 12y ago
      We are moving forward, but not as fast as much techno-evangelists want you to believe we are. The crux of the problem is with all medical information Watson has access to only that good. Yet with 1/100th to 1/1000th of the information how is a human doctor better?
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        > The crux of the problem is with all medical information Watson has access to only that good. Yet with 1/100th to 1/1000th of the information how is a human doctor better? Doesn't the NHS sell anonymized data from their health system in the UK? Can't we train Watson off of that data?

toomuchtodo 12y ago

I just got a shiver thinking about Google's machine learning ingesting most of GNU/Linux source code from distros, and "learning" how to write software better than a human.

Phlarp 12y ago
Machine learning applied to vulnerability research in open source code distributions =/= strong AI.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Well, maybe not yet. I think its silly to start discounting what level of AI we'll be able to develop with enough computing power and storage. Not to say we'll be able to duplicate biological system levels of computing in silicon, but who knows. Technology is moving pretty damn fast.
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    >but who knows. Technology is moving pretty damn fast. We've been saying this for nearly 70 years. I'm still waiting.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      You can ask your phone for the weather and to change the temperature of your home. You can store your entire music collection on a device the size of a postage stamp (512GB Sandisk MicroSD card). There are cars that can literally drive themselves. There is mini version of the space shuttle that runs completely autonomously in space, and has loitered up there for over a year, waiting to come home when it receives a specially coded signal. IBM has software that is slowly replacing doctors and lawyers. The future is already here.
      - DasIch 12y ago
        Most of these things are solved with simple algorithms though. That we are able to solve a lot of these problems is pretty much inevitable as the technology stack grows and we are able to stick stuff together via APIs. These systems may seem smart or intelligent but really they are just a large complex network of systems. There is nothing intelligent about them. AI of this kind is not just the result of a simple step or several. AI will probably be a revolutionary break through that requires an understanding of intelligence and being, we have not made any significant progress in.
      - roywiggins 12y ago
        A lot of the modern changes are a difference in size or extent, but not in kind. I mean to say: A small hard drive replacing a massive hard drive is very, very useful. But it's not, by itself, any smarter than the magnetic core storage that filled a room. You could ask your Nokia dumbphone for the weather using a text message 15 years ago. People were wiring their home lighting systems into the internet by the early 2000s. Of course, it was more ad-hoc and expensive then. Now you can go down to Best Buy and buy a home automation kit for a few hundred dollars. The miniaturization and extension of digital technology into every part of our lives and waking moments is extraordinary. But it's not, by itself, much of a guarantee that we'll see strong AI. It's probably necessary but not sufficient.
valarauca1 12y ago
Compilers already do this to an extent. But overall I don't think computers will be actively creating things for a while yet. Maybe I just believe to much in humanity, or I'm just to jaded from following tech news for too long.
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  I always bring this up on HN, but IBM's Watson can diagnose cancer better than 2nd year med students. It's not sentient, but baby steps!
  - valarauca1 12y ago
    We are moving forward, but not as fast as much techno-evangelists want you to believe we are. The crux of the problem is with all medical information Watson has access to only that good. Yet with 1/100th to 1/1000th of the information how is a human doctor better?
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      > The crux of the problem is with all medical information Watson has access to only that good. Yet with 1/100th to 1/1000th of the information how is a human doctor better? Doesn't the NHS sell anonymized data from their health system in the UK? Can't we train Watson off of that data?